Statins and T2D

I found that taking Atorvastatin reduced my mobility a lot - that can't be good for my heart

lindisfel said:

Did he say what risk you would have of a heart attack if you took statins? 42% sounds awfully precise, he must be an incredibly diagnostic medic. It seems that statins cause significant muscle problems in some patients, what concerns me is what taking them has done to my heart muscle..the heart is just a very complicated muscle. I certainly think atorvastatin pushed me over the prediabetic fence into being classed as diabetic! D.

Click to expand...

I imagine he used the QRISK2 calculation as recommended by NICE.
https://qrisk.org/2017/

Have a go @Guzzler and see what you come up with.

Ah, statistics.

Roughly 80% of T2 diabetics are over weight or obese on diagnosis. Non-diabetics who are overweight or obese also have a raised risk. Poorly controlled diabetes can restake in damage to the nervous and vascular system.

So the statistics include morbidly obese diabetics with enormously elevated blood glucose who are already suffering extreme consequences such as blindness and amputation.

If you are slim and fit then your individual risk factor is probably lower.

42% chance? So neay half the posters here have had or will have an incident?

Or 42% higher chance? In which case what is the original figure.

LittleGreyCat said:

Ah, statistics.

Roughly 80% of T2 diabetics are over weight or obese on diagnosis. Non-diabetics who are overweight or obese also have a raised risk. Poorly controlled diabetes can restake in damage to the nervous and vascular system.

So the statistics include morbidly obese diabetics with enormously elevated blood glucose who are already suffering extreme consequences such as blindness and amputation.

If you are slim and fit then your individual risk factor is probably lower.

42% chance? So neay half the posters here have had or will have an incident?

Or 42% higher chance? In which case what is the original figure.

Click to expand...

The QRISK2 calculation isn't calculated quite like that. If the 42% is from the Qrisk, which I imagine it is, then it means she has a 42% risk from everyone with identical risk factors to herself, not a 42% risk overall. In other words, in a crowd of 100 people with the same risk factors as @Guzzler , 42 are likely to have a heart attack or stroke within the next 10 years.

Well the answer is simple then just avoid crowds.

lindisfel said:

Did he say what risk you would have of a heart attack if you took statins? 42% sounds awfully precise, he must be an incredibly diagnostic medic. It seems that statins cause significant muscle problems in some patients, what concerns me is what taking them has done to my heart muscle..the heart is just a very complicated muscle. I certainly think atorvastatin pushed me over the prediabetic fence into being classed as diabetic! D.

Click to expand...

Maybe it affects some muscles differently? I've never once read anyone has been stopped playing marbles as it affected muscles in the thumb for example , so maybe your heart muscle will be ok. Probably worth a look with Google to reassure you, as that does seem to list the muscles that may be affected in some small cases.

bulkbiker said:

New evidence seems to suggest that lowering cholesterol levels in women especially has a negligible and possibly negative effect on the chances of them living longer. i.e. higher cholesterol levels leads to longer life. There is also current research going on that may well show that cholesterol levels, like blood sugar levels, are dynamic and may change during the day - possibly dependent on what you have eaten. So your Dr or nI'm ol(who is extremely unlikely to know about the fluctuations) will test you and prescribe a drug which they think you should take for life based on a single snapshot of your cholesterol levels at the time of doing the test. Which would be similar to diagnosing diabetes on a single finger prick test. Crazy? maybe but that is what currently happens. Criminal.. again possibly. Please remember what you put in your body is up to you and not up to your HCP's. The benefits of statins for older women are probably non existent (at least that is what my extensive reading has shown). This is just some random person on the internet and I am in no way a medical professional but I would heartily recommend spending some time on researching statins and their "benefits".

Click to expand...

Thanks bulkbiker and bluetit. I seem to remember something I heard on the news about the so called benefits of statins which I mentioned to my new gp. He did the calculation and said that because I have been dx with T2, high cholestrol and I'm a smoker my risk was 42%. He did not say anything about how much statins could lower that risk. To be honest, a generalised figure of 50-50 did not shock me because there is a long history of heart attack in my family i.e I know how I'm going to kick the bucket. (All heart readings and blood pressure have been normal)

Guzzler said:

Thanks bulkbiker and bluetit. I seem to remember something I heard on the news about the so called benefits of statins which I mentioned to my new gp. He did the calculation and said that because I have been dx with T2, high cholestrol and I'm a smoker my risk was 42%. He did not say anything about how much statins could lower that risk. To be honest, a generalised figure of 50-50 did not shock me because there is a long history of heart attack in my family i.e I know how I'm going to kick the bucket. (All heart readings and blood pressure have been normal)

Click to expand...

As I'm sure you know the best thing you could do is stop smoking.. but as an ex smoker I also know how easy that is to say and how hard to do. All the best though.

bulkbiker said:

As I'm sure you know the best thing you could do is stop smoking.. but as an ex smoker I also know how easy that is to say and how hard to do. All the best though.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. Stopping smoking is better for you than all of the other dietary recommendations we spend so much time debating put together.

Speaking as an ex-smoker.......

TBH my smoking has increased since T2 was diagnosed, it's the stress.

There have been very large scale trails that show taking Statins increase length of life and quality of like even if someone’s Cholesterol is “normal”. I think Statins make a high BG less harmful and the benefits are a lot more than the harm from a small increase in BG.

Personally I going to keep taking the Statins and reduce my BG with low (or mid) curb food, a walk after most meals (10 minutes is shown to be of a lot of benefit) and increased exercise to improve insulin sensitivity. I am about to start to strength exercise as well as the current power walking, so as to get more muscle in the rest of my body, as they can burn fat for me, and take up the BG more quickly. (I should lose 4 stone, but care more about increasing muscle mass and keeping BG low.)

Remember the BG monitoring is a tool, and the BG level is a way to help you see how you are doing, having a low BG is of no value if you die due to something else, or have a low quality of life….. (Since my GP have decided I have Diabetes (just over two weeks ago) I have gone from a BG of 35 to mostly under 6, most of this due to reducing curb, including no longer drinking a carton of orange juice each day.)

Most people get on well with Statins, most people who post to a forum do not. That does not mean that most people reading the forum will not get on well with Statins! (The same can be said about Metformin, the only diabetes med I am happy to take.)

ringi said:

I think Statins make a high BG less harmful

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the studies you speak of have never shown that particular benefit. And indeed they seem to raise some people's blood glucose levels.
The problem a lot of people have with the science behind statin therapy is the underlying assumption that "cholesterol" is bad.
It is essential for life and is produced and regulated by your body. The mechanisms of exactly how and what it does are not yet fully understood so to artificially lower it by taking a drug could be messing with something that is both essential and natural.

ringi said:

a low BG is of no value if you die due to something else

Click to expand...

very true however as elevated blood glucose levels seem to be a precursor to many other diseases then it is certainly worth doing all we can to keep it under control.

Love your new profile pic, @bulkbiker

Indy51 said:

Love your new profile pic, @bulkbiker

Click to expand...

Thanks @Indy51 finally got to meet the main man..and hear him speak.

There is increasing evidence that small cholesterol particles plus high BG is very harmful, see the Living Low Curb book.

The large scale Satin trails looked at the outcome on number of heart attacks and strokes over a long length of time. Satins showed good benefits in people with high risk factors regardless of the level of cholesterol (basic tests) they had. (So they are not just lowing a number on the GP's computer.)

Until there is a cheap way to measure cholesterol particles count, or get a detailed of the particle sizes, so it is recorded on most people GP records so allow large tails, I don’t think we will be able work out what types of high cholesterol is bad. (Clearly the standard GP tests don’t show the complete truth.)

Research seems to show that low curb gets even better results then Statins, but I don't think anyone has done large scale research looking at Low Curb with Statins.

ringi said:

Most people get on well with Statins,

Click to expand...

that is debatable.

I think I needs to get me a science degree...

ringi said:

There have been very large scale trails that show taking Statins increase length of life

Click to expand...

I'd love to see those results. Let's look rather at 'number needed to treat', a useful indication of a drug's efficacy

Living longer ?
"There is controversy about whether mortality is reduced by statins in this group. We do not believe so, but are aware that others interpret these data differently. The analyses suggesting mortality benefits in low risk patients are performed by a single group and they are done in a fashion we do not agree with."

Benefits/harms :

• None were helped (life saved)
• 1 in 60 were helped (preventing heart attack)
• 1 in 268 were helped (preventing stroke)
• • 1 in 50 were harmed (develop diabetes*)
  • 1 in 10 were harmed (muscle damage)
  
  
  
  http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-without-prior-heart-disease/
  
  
  I'll pass, thanks.
  Geoff
  
  
  

Bluetit1802 said:

The QRISK2 calculation isn't calculated quite like that. If the 42% is from the Qrisk, which I imagine it is, then it means she has a 42% risk from everyone with identical risk factors to herself, not a 42% risk overall. In other words, in a crowd of 100 people with the same risk factors as @Guzzler , 42 are likely to have a heart attack or stroke within the next 10 years.

Click to expand...

My point being that as far as I am aware the risk factor is having Diabetes. Not a subset of those with normal weight and good blood glucose control.

As the man said, "there are lies, **** lies and statistics!".