Statins Reduce Deaths from Infection and Respiratory

[Cowboyjim]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110828101912.htm

see also
http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=230746
This observation led to the hypothesis that drugs, including statins, may perform differently in patients with higher or lower plasma levels of galectin-3.

 

[pianoman]

Is there nothing these miracle statin drugs cannot do?!? It's a wonder the human species survived so long until they came along

From the Science Daily link...

The new analysis looked at the number and cause of deaths among the 4,605 participants in the ASCOT trial who are based in the UK. After 11 years' follow-up, overall mortality is 14 per cent lower in the group originally assigned atorvastatin, due largely to fewer deaths from infection and respiratory illness.
"This result is very unexpected," said Professor Peter Sever, from the International Centre for Circulatory Health at Imperial College London, who led the study. "The benefits of statins for preventing heart attacks and strokes are well-established, but after long-term follow-up the most significant effects seem to be on deaths from other causes.
...
Amongst UK participants, in the 11 years since the trial began, 460 of the original statin group have died, compared with 520 of the placebo group. The difference is largely explained by a 36 per cent reduction in deaths from infection and respiratory illness. Deaths from cardiovascular disease were also lower in the original statin group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

So, as we are often told "The benefits of statins for preventing heart attacks and strokes are well-established..." but are they really? His own study does not seem to provide evidence to back up that claim... "Deaths from cardiovascular disease [heart attacks and strokes] were also lower in the original statin group, but the difference was not statistically significant."

60 more died out of 4,605 participants over an 11 year span... and the impression we are given is that the only difference between them was this drug? It might sound impressive but to keep it in perspective, 460 still died while on the drug. Were side-effects of these drugs also reported so we can perform a risk:benefit analysis?

 

[noblehead]

Is there nothing these miracle drugs cannot do?!? It's a wonder the human species survived so long until they came along

Well some of these ''miracle drugs'' have helped my dear old mother live much longer than originally thought, and yes that does indeed include a statin together with a cocktail of other drugs. Despite being in her 80's she continues to enjoy life and appreciate everyday as it comes.

Any drug that prolongs life in my opinion deserves a big thumbs up!

Nigel

 

[pianoman]

Well some of these ''miracle drugs'' have helped my dear old mother live much longer than originally thought, and yes that does indeed include a statin together with a cocktail of other drugs. Despite being in her 80's she continues to enjoy life and appreciate everyday as it comes.

Any drug that prolongs life in my opinion deserves a big thumbs up!

I'm genuinely happy for you and your Mother.

I'm not telling you what to believe and I agree that there are many drugs with a proven track record... this thread is about statins and I am not convinced by the evidence, hence my putting it under scrutiny, offering critique and asking questions.

I trust in critical thinking and making my own mind up rather than just believing everything I am told... regardless of who says it

Yes my opening remark was sarcastic... as befits the banner headlines trumpeting yet another use for drugs that are approved for artificially lowering "cholesterol" levels; which they evidently do... it's almost like the drug companies realise that the cholesterol myth is about to fall around their ears, so they are putting about for other ways to keep selling this same highly profitable drug... but perhaps I am just being cynical. :roll:

 

[noblehead]

''Cholesterol myth'' .......well I won't comment on that one Pianomam and leave you to think what you like! :wink:

Roll on the miracle cures if they prolong life is all I can say!

btw, not a statin user......yet! :lol:

Nigel

 

[pianoman]

Roll on the miracle cures if they prolong life is all I can say...

I can see that with something like antibiotics which might cure me from an otherwise usually fatal, acute infection

but (again) this thread is about statins which we are told (by some Doctors... not all) that they will protect us from cardiovascular disease and that presumably once we start taking them we take them for the rest of our lives.

How will you determine if the statin prolonged your life or if you were just going to live longer anyway? How will you determine if those muscle aches, mental confusion etc... are side-effects of statins or just signs of ageing? The only ways to make any predetermination of risk:benefit (and most drugs carry risks) is to rely on research and gather usage data... I'm suggesting that we would do well to look beyond the headlines of these studies and ask questions.

 

[noblehead]

[How will you determine if the statin prolonged your life or if you were just going to live longer anyway?

No way of knowing I suppose, my brother was a sure-fire candidate for a heart attack or stroke when it was discovered his cholesterol level was 9 in a medical assessment at work, his cholesterol level is now below 4 and yet has no syptoms of tirednes or muscle ache... much the same as my dear old mother.

Statins are not for everyone as some have a horrible time when taking them, but my bet is that ther are more that can tolerate them than those that can't.

I'll be discussing the possibilities of a low-dose statin even though my cholesterol is fine and a angiogram and echogram confirmed my heart is in perfect working, the cardio nurse seems to think as a long-term diabetic I would best be on a low-dose statin to avoid future complications, I will discuss this with my consultant at my next diabetes check.

Nigel

 

[pianoman]

No way of knowing I suppose, my brother was a sure-fire candidate for a heart attack or stroke when it was discovered his cholesterol level was 9 in a medical assessment at work, his cholesterol level is now below 4 and yet has no symptoms of tiredness or muscle ache...

Was he a "sure-fire candidate" based on that cholesterol level alone and is the only change he made to start taking a statin drug? Any other associated risk factors? Any other dietary or activity level intervention? And I'm not prying into his personal business... just posing more pertinent questions... no need to answer them on my account.

I'm just not convinced by the current evidence that statins work "as advertised" -- yes they effectively and artificially "reduce cholesterol levels" -- except (as I have posted elsewhere) even the term "levels" is misleading... as the chief "suspect" LDL is given as a calculated volume (not even directly measured) and being a volume does not take into account the different sized particles of LDL, with small-dense particles (lower volume) beings seen as 300% more indicative of risk than large-fluffy particles (high volume).

Because statins do reduce cholesterol (a vital substance for many many processes in the body -- including repairing inflammed or damaged arteries) they can be seen as a "feel good" drug because it is easy to point at blood results and say "look we lowered your cholesterol!"... I'm simply posing the question "so what?"

 

[noblehead]

Was he a "sure-fire candidate" based on that cholesterol level alone and is the only change he made to start taking a statin drug? Any other associated risk factors? Any other dietary or activity level intervention? And I'm not prying into his personal business... just posing more pertinent questions... no need to answer them on my account.

Well his gp says he was but I'm not qualified to say either way. The only other changes he made were to reduce his fat intake and incorporate more fruit and vegtables into his daily diet, his fitness was never a question as he cycles and walks everyday to work and occasionally takes part in runs for charity.

I advised him to swap his morning cornflakes for porridge instead, if anything he says he feels much fitter and healthier now but then he didn't really feel to bad when his cholesterol was 9.

Nigel

 

[pianoman]

I'm also not qualified to diagnose or prescribe treatment for anyone else but I am qualified to ask critical questions for my own sake -- especially when it becomes clear that the scientific evidence for "cholesterol causes cardiovascular disease" is not clear, while the use and safety of statins is questioned by at least some mainstream HCPs and researchers (along with many others who have been marginalised for questioning the mainstream establishment)... at that point, for me, it becomes my own judgement call as to which professionals + evidence are most convincing... and I don't accept that majority rules in science.

[youtube]i8SSCNaaDcE[/youtube]