• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Statins.....no longer sure what to think

Please see guidelines ref CVD and statins ftom NICE guidelines..

http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/PH2

I am still trying to find the document that I have seen for alternatives like ezemitibe.. But it is somewhere!!
 
There are other drugs called "fibrates" that can be used if persons have reactions to statins. Again GPs rarely discuss these. My healt peofessionals know I am intolerant to statins and the only person to ever discuss ezemetibe or fibrates with me was a reaearch consultant at QE2 hospital in Birmingham. No other persons have ever discussed.
 
catherinecherub said:
Muscle effects
Statins can occasionally cause muscle inflammation (swelling) and damage. Speak to your doctor if you experience muscle pain, tenderness or weakness that cannot be explained (for example, pain that is not due to physical work).

Your doctor will carry out a blood test to measure a substance in your blood called creatine kinase (CK), which is released into the blood when your muscles are inflamed or damaged.

If the level of CK in your blood is more than five times the normal level, your doctor may advise you to stop taking the statin. Regular exercise can sometimes lead to a rise in CK, so tell your doctor if you have been exercising a lot.

Once your CK level has returned to normal, your doctor may suggest you start taking the statin again, but at a lower dose.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cholesterol-lowering-medicines-statins/Pages/Side-effects.aspx
Click to expand...

I had several CK tests while taking statins and my GP at the time tried to suggest all sorts of things that might be the cause. He was never happy that statins were the cause. I knew differently even then and it's in the past.
I like the way it suggest that your doctor will carry out a blood test, I whinged a lot before a CK blood test, hopefully that will have changed now.
 
No it hasn't changed... My hubby not offered one, GP never suggested one.... He thinks because he gets no muscle pain etc like I do that he's ok.... He was happy in his ignorance. He is now going to GP end of July to get his next forms for blood tssts and will ask for CK to be tested. Patients shouldn't have to do this!!
 
donnellysdogs said:
No it hasn't changed... My hubby not offered one, GP never suggested one.... He thinks because he gets no muscle pain etc like I do that he's ok.... He was happy in his ignorance. He is now going to GP end of July to get his next forms for blood tssts and will ask for CK to be tested. Patients shouldn't have to do this!!
Click to expand...

It could be that if there's no muscle pain then there's no need for a CK test. It's used for all sorts of things other than muscle damage. The determination of CK activity is a proven tool in the investigation of skeletal muscle disease (muscular dystrophy) and is also useful in the diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI) and cerebrovascular accidents. Increased levels of CK also can be found in viral myositis, polymyositis, and hypothyroidism.I see the mention of 5 times normal but normal seems to be quite a wide range anyway, this is what I got from the Mayo Clinic Labs website.

Males
6-11 years: 150-499 U/L
12-17 years: 94-499 U/L
> or =18 years: 52-336 U/L

Females
6-7 years: 134-391 U/L
8-14 years: 91-391 U/L
15-17 years: 53-269 U/L
> or =18 years: 38-176 U/L

Following injury to the myocardium, such as occurs in acute MI, CK is released from the damaged myocardial cells. A rise in the CK activity can be found 4 to 8 hours after an infarction. CK activity reaches a maximum after 12 to 24 hours and then falls back to the normal range after 3 to 4 days.
Strenuous exercise or intramuscular injections may cause elevation of CK.Exercise and muscle trauma (contact sports, traffic accidents, intramuscular injections, surgery, convulsions, wasp or bee stings, and burns) can elevate serum creatine kinase values.

Whilst elevated CK levels might confirm a particular problem, it could also mean a lot of different things. One of the excuses my old GP use to use was that I did too much exercise. I did some, but nothing that I would describe as excessive.
 
Funny thing is, I told the Diabetic Registrar that I had taken myself off Statins having done a lot of research into the topic, including mentioning arterial calcification, etc. He started to say this was unwise, and I showed him my blood panel.

Whilst my LDL was higher than with the statins, my HDL was high and my Trigs were still very low, suggesting my LDL was fluffy. He tried to start on the "your LDL is higher than it was", and when I said "Look at my trigs" he gave up and realised that I knew as much about this as him.

A longwinded way to say - if you have read the research and drawn your own conclusion, MDs find it very hard to argue counter to your decision. Do your research!
 
sazzy19 said:
Hi, I had simvastatin a few years ago & felt so ill I stopped taking them....then my cholesterol shot up so the gp put me on atorvastatin & I've had no problems whatsoever, thankfully. Think simvastatin is just not a good one at all.
Click to expand...

Hi sazzy, its the cheapest one, that's why its the first to be dished out :rolleyes:
 
tim2000s said:
. . . . . . . . MDs find it very hard to argue counter to your decision. Do your research!
Click to expand...

Unless of course they have done their research. It was the most difficult thing I found with the whole issue. There are some persuasive arguments on both sides of the discussion and some very interesting research on both sides as well, and when you decide to disbelieve one argument then you must logically disbelieve the other for the same reason. How can I tell truth from "blinding me with science" See how confused I am?
The piece of science I liked, mainly because I understood it was the graph produced by the British Heart Foundation, it's been posted here several times. It shows that as total cholesterol levels go over 5.4 there's more CVD, and guess what, as it goes below 5.4 there's an increase in CVD. So it seems 5.4 is the optimum.
The problem is that although total cholesterol may affect CVD, so do several other things like tobacco, alcohol, which there isn't really a pill for, and blood pressure. Even where we live can be shown to have an effect on CVD and unfortunately we can't all live on a lovely island in the Pacific with lovely sandy beaches, preferably with staff to do all the rubbish stuff in our lives. I know, in my dreams.
 
I have been on simvastatin for years and I used to suffer with pains in my fingers and in my hip joints, I was willing to put up with this but recently I noticed that I was getting episodes of what I can only describe as a heavy feeling in my chest which I soon discovered was accompanied by an irregular heartbeat. This worried me a lot more than the joint pains and I decided to cut out the statins, within three days the"heavy" episodes had stopped and the heartbeat had returned to normal. Whilst I am aware that this could be coincidental, I am staying off statins until my next Hba1c test which is going to check cholesterol anyway. I should just add that I had previously proved that statins raise my liver enzymes and that I have always questioned the need for me to be on them as I have never had a cholesterol level above 4.5 but my GP`s view is that they do more good than harm, well it`s my heartbeat that`s being messed about with not his and I ain`t having it! Do I need to ask for a breakdown before I go for the blood test or do they do one automatically?
 
One of my GPS started talking statins just using my total cholesterol until being told he shouldn't without a full lipid breakdown. He soon tirned his telephone talk around when I said about my lipid profile.
No GP in 15 years has EVER marked on my records that I have intolerance to statins.
This has been on my letters from consultant but the persons typing up the detail from consultant letters have also ignored it!!
 
I remain unconvinced that cholesterol is the enemy, that's why I don't think statins are necessary. I am more concerned about their longer term effects on the body than their immediate effects of fatigue and muscle weakness. I read an article that suggested they made diabetes and macular degeneration and other health problems more likely if taken for longer than a year. I don't see the point of taking them for a year and then stopping them.

A while back someone posted that they felt that statins may be the new thalidomide. I thought about it and agree. Thalidomide was introduced to stop morning sickness and nausea. Morning sickness is perfectly natural and can help the body to get rid of toxins and therefore may even protect the baby. I had morning sickness every day from day1 of my pregnancy right up to the day my 2nd child was born. I knew I was pregnant straight away, before it would show up on a test. The sickness didn't harm either of us. So why make a drug that interferes with nature?

Thalidomide was produced to solve a problem that doesn't exist. That's how I see statins. Cholesterol is naturally produced by our bodies. We need it to varying degrees, some of us have higher levels than others. It's those with the artificially low levels that are most at risk.

It's just my opinion, but I haven't seen anything that is likely to change my mind on this subject yet.

Edit - I should have said that my Mum was offered Thalidomide but didn't accept it because she didn't have any nausea or sickness at all. When I asked her if she would have taken it if she had been sick she said yes of course she would have. I count myself very lucky indeed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top