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

Statins

  • Thread starter Thread starter badcat
  • Start Date Start Date
badcat said:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/statins_muscle_damage_heart_failure.html
Click to expand...

http://www.uptodate.com/contents/treatment-and-prognosis-of-diastolic-heart-failure

Statins — Intensive lipid lowering with statin therapy is recommended for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, independent of the presence of diastolic dysfunction. (See "Intensity of lipid lowering therapy in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease" and "Treatment of lipids (including hypercholesterolemia) in secondary prevention".)
Initial observational data suggest that statins might be of benefit in patients with DHF. Randomized trials are required to confirm these observations. Statin therapy in patients with HF is discussed in detail separately. (See "Statin therapy in patients with heart failure".)
 
Twice now after attempting to take atoravastatin I have had pains on the left side of my chest (heart??). As soon as I stopped taking them the chest (heart??) pains disappeared. It took 6 months for the chest pains to start. I had actually forgotten just how Ill I had felt with the heart pains previously. It was my hubby who reminded me... I had told him 4 years ago that if I died to make sure they tested me for statin damage to my heart and legs... The day after I stopped them 4 years ago the pains stopped, and it's been exactly the same this year when I agreed to try them again... Despite my levels being lower than my husbands, and the doc won't give him statins!!!




Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 

If I thought I was having a heart attack, I wouldn't be waiting for the post mortem.
 
I take my statin like a good boy but would stop immediately if I got any side effects.

In the UK statins are recommended via a cohort study done by NICE of 50000 people. It shows a definite reduction in cvd rates for people who take them ..

However ..

The Hunt 2 study of an equal number of 50000 Norwegians shows that cholesterol levels are a meaningless measurement in determining death in women and for men the best total cholesterol level that has the lowest death rate is around 5.5 with death levels rising either side of that 5.5 optimum.

Both the NICE study and Hunt 2 study are good peer reviewed science studies.

So toss a coin and take your pick.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
i stopped mine a week ago,,,,again i just dont know if i should or i shouldnt i worry when i do and then worry when i dont
 
Well I think it is entirely ok to belive both studies as one measures the effectiveness of statins in reducing cod and the other measures the relationship between total cholesterol levels and cause of death which are two different things.

I tried stopping mine and replaced them with plant sterols for 3 months but the jump in cholesterol I got convinced me to restart. Cholesterol levels have a large genetic component as well as being driven by what you eat. All my sibling's have high cholesterol regardless of their different diets so I put my tendency to get high cholesterol down to my parents genes.

Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 


If you look at the Hunt 2 for men, the risk of death may actually rise on either side, but it rises more on the higher side , particularly when you get to 7+, compared to the broad grouping of all of the population 5 and under.
I'd certainly be at less risk below 5 than above, grouping all results.
 
Andy12345 said:
i stopped mine a week ago,,,,again i just dont know if i should or i shouldnt i worry when i do and then worry when i dont
Click to expand...

I get on well with my dn. we have a pragmatic view.
Diabetes, cholesterol, diet, medicine, complications, life in general.
"Something's going to kill you eventually"
 

Biermann's researches in the 1990s showed that the tipping point for cvd etc was around 5 total chols in the general population - hence the current recommendation to keep it under 5 for most people.

But Biermann also found that the same tipping point for diabetics due largely to the effects of Diabetic Dyslipidemia was around 4 - hence the recommendation for us diabetics to keep total chols under 4. Basically we tend to have a lot of "bad" cholesterol - LDL.
 
I try to read most new threads but as soon as people starting quoting "studies" and "scientific papers" I switch off lol ! Should have stayed on at school longer !
 
mo1905 said:
I try to read most new threads but as soon as people starting quoting "studies" and "scientific papers" I switch off lol ! Should have stayed on at school longer !
Click to expand...



same here, anything longer than a paragraph or two and im ******** it would have been unfair to the teachers for me to stay longer
 
I'm still not convinced that there is a need for me to take statins. I took them for a while and went from 5.2 to 3.0 which I think is too low.

Yes, my father died from a heart attack at 59 but he had a stressful life and smoked 60 cigarettes a day, my Mother had a stroke in her late 70's.

I have never smoked, have blood pressure under recommended levels, don't have any calcium deposits around my heart (I did some medical research and the cardiologist said my heart was in tip top order), my blood sugar is well controlled.

Just because I have Type 2 (probably due to me overworking my pancreas with my previous love of sugary fizzy drinks, being over 18 stone at one point and genetics - my sister has it too). This shouldn't mean that I should be lumped in with other people with more risk factors than I have.

Most research about statins and cholesterol has been done on men, I'm a woman and we have a different hormonal make-up.

Cholesterol is needed for the conversion of sunlight to Vitamin D in the skin, having been Vitamin D deficient, it seems to me that lowering my cholesterol is the last thing I want to do.

The NHS doesn't test all components of cholesterol, so you have no idea what the proper breakdown is.

At my annual diabetes review, my cholesterol levels and statins are mentioned, I say I'm not convinced about them and won't take them, my GP finds the bit on the computer that says I won't take them and nothing is said until the next year - I'm fine with this.
 
That's the trouble with statins. If doctors can't even agree whether they are good or bad, how are we supposed to make an informed decision ? For every argument for, there is one against !


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
I've said it before, the subject of Statins blows my mind...
I have to come off them this coming year as we want to start a family. But the more I read the more I question whether I should come off them right away.
Oh well, I guess it's a question for the DSN next time I see her.
 
connie104 said:
I am like Andy worried if I take it and worried of I don't so I comprise and take one every other day. Seems to work last cholesterol check fine
Click to expand...

Well I suppose it's a compromise of sorts and seems to be doing the job
I honestly think if I had high cholesterol then I'd definitely give statins a try, yes some people do suffer side-effects but there's many more that don't and it's all about reducing the risks, all too often we can focus too much on bg control and take our eyes off the other things that matter.
 
mo1905 said:
That's the trouble with statins. If doctors can't even agree whether they are good or bad, how are we supposed to make an informed decision ? For every argument for, there is one against !


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
Click to expand...

Same as every other.

If I take my car to the garage, I don't always make them prove whatever they're doing is needed. Sometimes they phone me up, and I say ok. Sometimes I check the bill at the supermarket, sometimes I just pay it and walk out. If a dentist says I need a filling, I don't ask to put it up on the monitor. If I have a library fine, I don't ask for a calendar to check the maths.
If the doctor puts me on a medicine, I don't always check the studies to convince me they're right beyond any doubt. Sometimes the balance of probability has to be enough in any decision if that's all there is.
 
"So if 5.5 is the 'best' level for cholesterol why does the NHS target a level of 4 or lower for diabetics?"

Because Doctors get paid incentives to prescribe statin drugs.

FB
 
Daibell said:
So if 5.5 is the 'best' level for cholesterol why does the NHS target a level of 4 or lower for diabetics?
Click to expand...

Not sure ...

In any event using total cholesterol as the measure is bad as your total divided by your hdl ratio is seen to be more meaningful. NICE say try to get that ratio under 5 I think? In the US they reckon an even better measure is your Trigs divided by your HDL ratio but you can't simply calculate it without first converting your UK mmol numbers to US mg/dl values BEFORE calculating the ratio. If you do the conversion then calculate the ratio anything less than 2 is seen as ideal.
 
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.…