Statins - pros and cons

well, my mother went to bed one night and didn't wake up in the morning..age 69. on no medication at all and apparently fit and well.
an autopsy because of sudden death showed...left ventricular failure and arterial sclerosis.....
I take my simvastatin without fail.

That must have been a shock for you lemsip. My family history combines with AF, rheumatoid arthritis and more to encourage me to take statins

I only started taking a statin a few weeks ago. My GP wanted me to take them earlier but I said ‘no’. My cholesterol levels are fine but my family history isn’t good. Lots of strokes and heart attacks. My father died of a heart attack at 48.I also suffer from migraines, as did my father and his mother. So, I’ve agreed to take one. I will have some blood tests in August to check all is well. Just as I’m about to stop taking my three anti-cancer drugs I now have a statin! I also take gout medication and high blood pressure tablets. I rattle.

I started atorvastatin 20 mg 6 months ago. Cholesterol fell from 8.1 to 4.2. I have had no side effects. I have known too many people due with high cholesterol levels. I am happy to take them.I am a retired GP and am happy with the results of several very large studies across the world which show the benefits.

You are right to be sceptical, Maw, there is a great deal of controversy over statins and cholesterol in the medical profession.

15 years ago, when I was 60, a routine blood test showed my cholesterol level to be higher than the NICE guidelines (it was over 6), so my then GP decided I should be on a statin, and prescribed simvastatin, the cheapest one. Within a week, I had severe muscle pain, and gut discomfort, so decided to stop them. GP suggested a different statin, but I declined.

I’ve done a bit of research on cholesterol, which, naturally, gives much conflicting results, but you can read what Dr Aseem Malhotra has to say ( he is a highly esteemed cardiologist in the UK):
doctoraseem.com/the-truth-about-fat-and-sugar/

He believes that sugar (both refined and hidden in carbs) is the major culprit for cardiovascular damage (sugar is very inflammatory in the body), and that eating a healthy, low-carb diet is a much healthier option.

Like you, I am not on any medication, and have low-to-normal BP, and I hope to remain that way, as I prefer to avoid pharmaceuticals where possible.

I went low carb 6 years ago, mainly for my gut’s sake, but have no idea what my cholesterol level is now.

I also believe that statins should only be prescribed for those who have already had a cardiovascular event or are at risk of having one, as the benefits are so minimal otherwise.

Google the QRISK2 calculator, used by doctors to assess ones risk of a cardio vascular 'event'. The BIG thing to know is that it is heavily age weighted. Beyond a certain age your chances of not being recommended for statins are vanishingly small. Without your agreement, you will not be put on statins - it is your decision. But doctors are under pressure to put you on. DH is WELL but was put on statins on advice (he's a compliant sort of chap) - experienced muscle wasting and extreme fatigue, tried various brands over a good number of months (which we now feel made things worse). After long conversations with Dr he is off them - and slowly recovering his ability to walk a reasonable distance. This all sounds as though I'm agin 'em - no, but don't take them with no real need and don't ignore problems.

This has been really helpful. I am now trying to get a follow up appointment to discuss whether dietary changes could be tried first. 8.35 this morning - I was still in bed - and didn't have the full blood test results in front of me) was not the best time for me to think rationally!
My total cholesterol is 6.5 which though high is not off the scale is it?
I'm not going to be stupid about this or dogmatically anti-med but when the Dr said my risk of a stroke on the next 20 years was 18% I couldn't help wondering if that was probably about normal for my age anyway!

Thank you for all your contributions!
We shall see

There is a link here about statins if anyone's interested.

drmalcolmkendrick.org/2019/09/07/review-of-statins-needed/

Thank you for the QRISK link.
Unless somebody medical can put me right by saying otherwise,, I seem to be OK- or about average for my age.

Your score
Your 10-year QRISK®3 score15.3%
The score of a healthy person with the same age, sex, and ethnicity*16%
Relative risk**1
Your QRISK®3 Healthy Heart Age*74
*This is the score of a healthy person of your age, sex and ethnic group, i.e. with no adverse clinical indicators and a cholesterol ratio of 4.0, a stable systolic blood pressure of 125, and BMI of 25.
**Your relative risk is your risk divided by the healthy person's risk.
*Your QRISK®3 Healthy Heart Age is the age at which a healthy person of your sex and ethnicity has your 10-year QRISK®3 score.

My cholesterol level was minimally raised and the nurse said I’d receive a letter to see the doctor for statins. She added I could ignore it. I chose the latter especially after being told that my chances of stroke was raised to 18%. I told the nurse that 72% chance of not having one was pretty good odds. She looked surprised.
I’m perfectly well without them…. Mind you, had I had a stroke or TIA, I certainly would take them.

Been playing around with the QRISK tool.

Whatever I input into any of the boxes, my heart age is 8 years older than my real age because I'm T2 diabetic. If I lie and put that I'm not diabetic, my heart age drops to 3 years below my chronological age.

There's not very much I can do about being diabetic or having had a heart attack. My diet is very low carb, I'm reasonably active and am not overweight, so I'll carry on taking statins.

Maw Your total cholesterol is quite high, but the ratio is more important. Yours is higher than mine and I've been nagged to improve it.

Personally, I don't have a problem taking statins because I don't suffer any side effects, but it's your decision in the end.

MerylStreep

My opinion is that they are the biggest con ever perpetrated on health services all over the world.
I know my doctor feels the same ( although obviously he can’t come right out and say it)

I was in a consulting room with my friend when she was talking to her heart consultant. She told him she had come off the statins as she could no longer walk properly.
His reaction to her was: *and stay off them*

Personally, I think the multi-billion pound supplement business and many alleged superfoods are the biggest cons perpetuated on healthcare.

Been on Simvastatin for years without noticeable side-effects.

I won’t bore you with the details Maw but I do have an inherited condition that predisposes me to cardiovascular disease. It killed my mother, grandmother and great grandmother, so for me the choice was obvious. You don’t seem to have anything like that in the background. I hope you arrive at the best solution for you.

growstuff

Maw Your total cholesterol is quite high, but the ratio is more important. Yours is higher than mine and I've been nagged to improve it.

Personally, I don't have a problem taking statins because I don't suffer any side effects, but it's your decision in the end.

Not sure how to read the Blood test results , so I’d be grateful if anybody could shed light on these. If I’d been in front of the computer when the doc rang it would have helped but he was really unclear. I tend to know (sometimes) a bit of what is what, if I have the facts in front of me, but he was not volunteering any information.
So here goes -
Calculated LDL cholesterol level = 4.3
Serum cholesterol HDL ratio. =4.3
Total cholesterol level = 6.5 [0-7.4] (I assume the acceptable range? )
Serum HDL cholesterol level 1.5

LDL is the ‘bad’ cholesterol that can cause problems. The recommended level is 3 or below.

HDL is the ‘good’ cholesterol. The recommended level is 1 or above,

So mine at 4.3 is “bad”
I’m not dim really but this is a whole new ball game for me!

Your serum ratio should ideally be between 3.5 and 1, so either you should try to reduce your LDL or raise your HDL or both. Your serum triglycerides matter too - ideally below 1.8 mmo/L.

MawtheMerrier

So mine at 4.3 is “bad”
I’m not dim really but this is a whole new ball game for me!

It's not wonderful, which is probably why the doc is concerned.

I also wonder if there is any relevance in the fact that this was not a fasting blood test - it was at midday and I was given no instructions to fast - so I didn’t!

Statins will probably bring your LDL down, but I've always found it difficult to raise HDL.

growstuff

Your serum ratio should ideally be between 3.5 and 1, so either you should try to reduce your LDL or raise your HDL or both. Your serum triglycerides matter too - ideally below 1.8 mmo/L.

Thanks Growstuff
My Serum triglycerides are 1.6mmol/L

MawtheMerrier

I also wonder if there is any relevance in the fact that this was not a fasting blood test - it was at midday and I was given no instructions to fast - so I didn’t!

I don't think it makes any difference. I have blood tests every six months and I've never been told to fast. I don't think cholesterol levels vary much throughout the day.

Why the heck don’t they give you an explanation or some indication of what these figures all mean beside each result, or be prepared to take one through the results.
Rhetorical question!