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

Statins research

mcdonagh47

Well-Known Member
Messages
79
Daily Mail report of a Lancet article from Denmark ..

"
Statins could protect against blindness and amputations caused by diabetes, researchers have found.
Diabetes patients taking the cholesterol-lowering drugs were up to 40 per cent less likely to develop these complications.
Experts believe the pills may have the added benefit of reducing inflammation in the eye and nerve damage in limbs – which in severe cases can lead to feet being amputated.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2750075/Statins-stop-diabetics-going-blind-Pills-cut-damage-blood-vessels-eye.html#ixzz3CwYc1uTz
 
Who are the experts though? Who were these experts paid by to do this research?
 
yep, that's my primary reason for taking them..micro vascular inflammation
I haven't looked at article, but you only need small dose compared to cholesterol treatment
 
Seen this earlier today, it's encouraging news for those who are already taking a stain or considering taking them.
 
We can all compare notes in thirty years
.
.
.
Hopefully.
 
douglas99 said:
We can all compare notes in thirty years
.
.Hopefully.
Click to expand...

No disrespect Douglas, but I'm hoping that they'll be a cure of sorts and this forum will be history
 
I wouldn't mind that.
Best result in fact.
We can all hope that in thirty years time the arguments were over nothing.
 
it was a snapshot of 60,000 people after av. 2.7 years with a statistical reduction, they aren't claiming the holy grail

AFAIK neutral hazard ratio HR=1 but I'm happy to be corrected
statin use
retinopathy HR=0.6 [decrease of risk]
neuropathy HR=0.66
gangrene of the foot HR=0.88
diabetic nephropathy HR=0.97
diabetes HR=1·17 [increase of risk]


 
Last edited by a moderator:
So the statins made more people diabetic, but with less of the diabetics getting complications. If I was non-diabetic I would not be reaching for the statins!
 
Ok now I am more confused. How do they get an HR for diabetes if all subjects in the study are diabetic?

Why does the abstract say merely "doesn't make it worse" when the HR scores show statins improving outcomes significantly for neuropathy and retinopathy?
 
you aren't really asking me about this gobblegook are you? I'm struggling too


edit, wrong info
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doesn't it depend on whether the base odds of a non diabetic getting diabetes "A" are higher than the base odds of a diabetic getting complications "B"? If the ratio of B:A is lower than the HRs for complications, then the statins are making it net worse.

So OK I answered my own question on why they only say "no harm done" despite the statins showing good HR for complications.

I guess as a diabetic this data does incline me to take statins. Just need to find one I can tolerate...
 
I think if you put it on a over 40+ life time, rather than the av 2.7 yrs, it makes sense to me and that's without taking CVD strokes and heart attack into account
 
Evidence is weak to nil on CVD outcomes but this microvascular stuff could make me a believer.
 
I thought it was 1:3 statins to non-statins, with all subjects being diabetic? Maybe I read that wrong. Must have.
 
http://www.healio.com/endocrinology/diabetes/news/online/{fcbd8a4e-a500-4f44-9df2-7cb5ab2c3229}/statins-before-diabetes-diagnosis-did-not-increase-microvascular-disease-risk
Using data from the Danish Patient Registry and the Danish Registry of Medicinal Product Statistics, the researchers randomly selected 15,679 individuals treated with statins regularly until their diabetes diagnosis. The group was matched in a 1:3 ratio with 47,037 individuals who had never used statins before diagnosis

my mistake they all had/got diabetes
 
Does that mean some of the larger group DID use statins too, but only after diagnosis? ??

Because if the improved HR was from use of statins *prior* to diagnosis, (checks pockets for a time machine, finds none) then that is not a choice any of us on here are able to make.
 
you are asking me about gobblegook again, but you need to see the original study to see what it said and not a journalist who writes what he thinks he is reading and odds are it's from a news feed and no one has read it
, it's not hard for a layman to get bamboozled

IMO, it's worth taking a low dose statin if you can, now, which brand has better trials?
some people don't immunise their kids, so everyone is different and not everyone will agree with me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…