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

Statins

S

SilvT

Member
Messages
11
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Pump
I’m so confused in whether I should be taking statins. The docs and hospital are telling me because I’m >10 years of having diabetes, i should be taking them. I’m 42 years old and had diabetes for 26 years now. No one has ever said about taking them to prevent heart attacks etc and now all of a sudden I’m forced to take them. My Cholesterol is 4.1, Triglycerides is 0.4 and has an ‘L’ next to it, HDL 1.3, LDL 2.6, HDL ratio 3.2 and Non HDL is 2.8. All my levels are within the normal range. Is anyone else going through this or gone through this?
 
Hi apparently it‘s nhs guidelines to offer statins to those at risk, diabetics and anyone over 50 as a precaution! You can choose whether you want to take them. I get asked every year and I decline. They laugh now when they ask as they know what the answer is going to be. Do lots of research then you can make an informed decision
 
You might find this useful. By the way I am allergic to statins and still well nearly 25 years later!
 
Grant_Vicat said:
You might find this useful. By the way I am allergic to statins and still well nearly 25 years later!
Click to expand...

Cholesterol and Statins

There are always a lot of threads about Statins and Cholesterol and we all post our various favourite bits of current presentations about them but I thought it might be handy to have them all in one thread. I meant to put this together soon after the get together in Birmingham (sorry @Debandez)...
www.diabetes.co.uk
 
Thank you for the advice. I didn’t know they offer it over 50s. They said to me it’s anyone who’s been diabetic for over 10 years needs it. I have done the research but have no clue what to do.
 
SilvT said:
Thank you for the advice. I didn’t know they offer it over 50s. They said to me it’s anyone who’s been diabetic for over 10 years needs it. I have done the research but have no clue what to do.
Click to expand...
You don’t NEED it. They get lots of money for prescribing it and I think it’s money driven rather than any benefits for patients but that’s my own opinion after doing research
 
MissMuffett said:
You don’t NEED it. They get lots of money for prescribing it and I think it’s money driven rather than any benefits for patients but that’s my own opinion after doing research
Click to expand...
That’s so typical they should be looking after their patients!! Thanks so much for the advice really appreciate it.
 
After my latest blood test I was told that the pharmacist would be phoning me. Thought to myself - this is going to be cholesterol.
Correct.
Tried to put the frighteners on me. Got very shirty when I refused statins. 'new studies show that I am a risk of a heart attack and I should avoid saturated fat, that old chestnut. Who did this new 'study'. I've not heard anything.

Seeing the 'diabetes nurse' on 22nd, that will be another fiasco.


Serum lipid levels Report, Abnormal, Other (speak to pharmacist/ PA). Review done by ***REMOVED*** - 09 Jul 2024 08:44
​
Serum cholesterol/HDL ratio (XaEUq) 3.3 mmol/mmol
​
Serum LDL cholesterol level (44P6.) 4.8 mmol/L
NB the calculation of LDL is valid only for a
fasting sample.
​
Serum non high density lipoprotein cholesterol level (XabE1) 5.2 mmol/L
​
​

Serum cholesterol level (XE2eD) 7.5 mmol/L
Serum triglyceride levels (XE2q9) 0.8 mmol/L [0.4 - 1.5]
​
Serum HDL cholesterol level (44P5.) 2.3 mmol
​

Message edited by a moderator to remove personally identifiable information (see Forum Rules - C12).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Genuine question - why are people so opposed to taking statins? Are they not a good thing?
 
MarthaD said:
Genuine question - why are people so opposed to taking statins? Are they not a good thing?
Click to expand...
I took Atorvastatin and Metformin for about 5 weeks after diagnosis and I was wrecked both physically and mentally It took 18 moths for the last aching muscle to subside, longer for my memory to recover.
If taking those tablets would mean I lived longer, I'd still refuse them as that was not living.....
 
MarthaD said:
Genuine question - why are people so opposed to taking statins? Are they not a good thing?
Click to expand...
I'm doing a lot of research on this. At the moment my understating is they may lengthen my life by 3 days. They may work on one of the symptoms of high ldl cholesterol, but high ldl cholesterol may not be the killer its painted to be. I think currently there are several pieces of the jigsaw missing and I personally dont want to be on medications for 30+ years, especially where the long term effects of those medicines have not been fully tested. Imho the drugs industry and medical profession have jumped too soon onto a cheap and easy bandwagon that is yet to be fully proven.
As I said, I'm still researching and won't be rushing to jump either way.
I'm in remission, of normal weight , no blood pressure issues, no other markers for heart disease, no family history .
I've only been prescribed them because of my age and my t2. No one has looked at the fuller individual picture of me. I just ticked 2 boxes. Is that enough reason to be prescribed lifelong drugs? I think not.
Just my humble opinion
 
Was asked a similar question by GP after my last blood results. He did not care about anything else than trying to put me on statins. Recommendation because I'm over 40, T1 and slightly elevated cholesterol....he of course did not bother to understand that my cholesterol was slight off because I just entered ketogenic diet. I did some research and honestly, do not recommend statins to anyone. GP really ****** me off and just realised that the only person who can really take care of you is yourself. Do your research....
 
Statins usage the USA ... rose from 37 million people in 2008/9 to 92 million in 2018/19 - a 217% increase.

Despite that the healthy life expectancy in the USA dropped from 66.7 years in 2010 to 66.1 years in 2019 (World Health Organization Stats). See https://www.jeffnobbs.com/posts/trends-in-usa-healthy-life-expectancy

It seems like this fixation with cholesterol is killing Americans. People were convinced to drop saturated fat and replace it with vegetable oils like sunflower and rape seed. This has coincided with a dramatic increase in heart disease, obesity and type 2 diabetes. See https://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/th...ity-heart-disease-and-type-2-diabetes.204927/
 
I don't like the sound of them to be honest. I've turned these down twice so far. I am not even 10 years diabetic > I don't have heart problems . I dont smoke. My cholesterol I believe is ok.

I think my mother had a horrible time with them and came off them very quickly the side affect for her was long lasting ( kind of numbing in the legs I believe )

A friend of mine who is in his 50's had a heart attack, hes on statins...probably sensible for him ( and he's overweight and T2 diabetic ). he swears by them - has no ill effects from them.....

Consultants like to offer it to diabetics - to minimize the risk of heart attacks ( but the actual percentage is very low )

Look at this you tube video, I found it interesting.

"The Pros and Cons of Statin Drugs | drsinatra.com"​

 
How awful for you. Thanks for letting us know it can be bad .....
 
My personal view is this, do as much research as you can about them. It’s very much a personal choice. Don’t be afraid to say no to your GP if you choose not to go on Statins, many people on this forum have said no to them. My Triglycerides are 0.54, my HDL is good, but my LDLs are out of range. If my Dr suggests I go on them I shall ask him why. He is one of the good Drs. He’s attentive and he listens.

I read, what I thought to be, a very convincing thesis around the low fat hypothesis called The Clot Thickens, by Malcolm Kendrick. It was a book recommended to me by one of our members. Kendrick addresses the low fat thesis and the use of statins. For a medical thesis it is very entertaining, readable and accessible. I was taken with his argument around the demonization of fats. Worth a read @SilvT. Ultimately the choice is yours. I will likely refuse them if my Dr suggests them, but willing to listen to what he has to say. I have done the research and I feel I can for now say no I don’t want them. I have no heart issues, as far as I’m aware which may perused me otherwise, but for now, I’ll decline them.
 
I agree with doing your own research and deciding based on the most modern results which, strangely enough, recommend a higher cholesterol reading being beneficial to women in general and older women in particular (the early research was done only on men...). I have known many individuals including close family made very ill through taking statins, including memory problems (severe) and muscle pain (also severe). I also spent 9 years working as a physiotherapist, and had many clients whose pain issues started when they took statins.

So - not for me. But we each need to make our own decisions.
 
MissMuffett said:
They get lots of money for prescribing it and I think it’s money driven rather than any benefits for patients but that’s my own opinion after doing research
Click to expand...
That's interesting.
Who gets money for statins (apart from the manufacturers) and why?
 
In Response said:
That's interesting.
Who gets money for statins (apart from the manufacturers) and why?
Click to expand...
It works through the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QoF) in the UK. Basically a certain (very large) number of targets are set - eg 90% of patients fitting a, b, and c criteria are to be on medications x, y and z, and the GP practice is paid for achieving the targets. Targets are set by negotiation between NHS England and the BMA with the Department of Health on the sidelines.

The amount is not that large per target, but given the number of targets it adds up. The chances of a single patient's choice affecting what the practice gets paid is miniscule, and most of the targets are set around a lower achievement at say 75%, and higher one at (eg) 95%. Achieving the higher one gets a bigger payment.

This system is opposed by the BMA who believe that it is unduly prescriptive and does not take account of individual cases, as well as breaching trust between patient and doctor. It obviously rewards doctor activity rather than patient outcome. And because it takes the public health approach - eg this will benefit 80% of people but to achieve that we'll make everyone do it - there are undoubtedly people for whom the target is inappropriate.

I've posted a link before, but here it is again for 24/25:


Diabetes mellitus at page 48: nine (if I've counted correctly) targets, and none of them is about remission, although they will get a payment if 35% of patients have an HbA1c of 58mmol/mol or less, with a bonus for 75%:

DM020. The percentage of patients with diabetes, on the register, without moderate or severe frailty in whom the last IFCC-HbA1c is 58 mmol/mol or less in the preceding 12 months
 
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.…