Statins please share your experience/knowledge

pably15

Katyj, have you read some of the posts on here by other members...I thought 4.4 was pretty low, but 2...?.any lower and there wont be any cholesterol....and every organ in you body needs it...I hope your friend has a chat with her gp before she makes up her mind..

The recommended level for total non-HDL cholesterol is 4 (lower if somebody has already had a heart attack or stroke).

Maybe your friend was talking about her triglycerides - 2 is borderline high.

lizzypopbottle

growstuff I didn't write the book but, as I said, I found it an interesting read. He doesn't say there's a 'one size fits all' cause of/solution to coronary heart disease other than that the risk increases naturally with advancing age. He quotes the research that he has access to.

I hope you stay well.

I haven't read the book either, but he seems to have missed all the research which comes to the conclusion that statins are worth taking, including by women.

I have taken them for 21 years and had no side effects at all.

growstuff I didn't write the book but, as I said, I found it an interesting read. He doesn't say there's a 'one size fits all' cause of/solution to coronary heart disease other than that the risk increases naturally with advancing age. He quotes the research that he has access to.

I hope you stay well.

Katyj, have you read some of the posts on here by other members...I thought 4.4 was pretty low, but 2...?.any lower and there wont be any cholesterol....and every organ in you body needs it...I hope your friend has a chat with her gp before she makes up her mind..

pably15 Good question. No mention of dietary changes. I’m just wondering if my surgery has been a bit too relaxed with my cholesterol reading if 4.4 is considered too high now, her surgery said they really want a reading of about 2.
She has no heart disease or family history of heart disease. Normal BP and weight.

why wasn't this lady advised to try to change her diet first instead of taking statins. does she have a history of heart disease....

This thread caught my eye as I’ve just had a friend on the phone 68 frantic with worry. She had a text message from her surgery after having bloods taken on Monday to say could she make an urgent appointment to see the Dr.
When she rang she spoke with the nurse only to be told her cholesterol is very high 4.4 and she’ll need to start tablets immediately. I can’t understand it as my cholesterol last year was 5.7 the nurse left it up to me to decide if I wanted to start tablets I declined said I’d wait and see what this year brings.

I have just stopped taking them and I have more energy, fewer aches and pains and less flatulence. I have just had a blood test and will see what comes out of that.

This study is now a little out-of-date (2015) but the results haven't changed:

www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-01-09-statin-treatment-reduces-risk-heart-disease-women#:~:text=The%20percentage%20risk%20reductions%20were,L%20reduction%20in%20LDL%20cholesterol.

Women do benefit from taking statins.

Farzanah

^and not at all for women^ I find that strange lizzy.
According to the BHF 1 in 14 women will die from CHD.
Heart attack is the second biggest cause of death (both genders) in U.K. and twice as many women die from CHD than breast cancer, including those under 75!
One of the proven modifiable ways of reducing risk along with reducing blood pressure, is taking statins for raised cholesterol.

Exactly! I had a heart attack six years ago. I've been T2 diabetic half my life ... and I'm a woman!

I resisted taking statins until I had the heart attack because I'm not overweight, don't drink alcohol, don't smoke and eat healthily. I'd read the stuff from statins cynics and I guess i believed it. I thought I was fit and healthy and didn't need to stuff my body full of drugs. My cholesterol was slightly elevated, I kept my blood sugars reasonably within range with medication and diet, my blood pressure was fine and I thought I was invincible.

I've been taking statins for six years with no side effects.

Farzanah he quotes research that suggests that taking statins doesn't reduce the risks of CHD in women. He doesn't say women are not at risk of CHD. I'll try to find the reference in the book.

and not at all for women I find that strange lizzy.
According to the BHF 1 in 14 women will die from CHD.
Heart attack is the second biggest cause of death (both genders) in U.K. and twice as many women die from CHD than breast cancer, including those under 75!
One of the proven modifiable ways of reducing risk along with reducing blood pressure, is taking statins for raised cholesterol.

This is what NICE say about using statins:

"Paul Chrisp, director of the Centre for Guidelines at NICE, said: ‘What we’re saying is that, for people with a less than 10% risk over 10 years of a first heart attack or stroke, the decision to take a statin should be left to individual patients after an informed discussion of benefits and risks.

‘The evidence is clear, in our view, that for people with a risk of 10% or less over 10 years, statins are an appropriate choice to reduce that risk.

‘We are not advocating that statins are used alone. The draft guideline continues to say that it is only if lifestyle changes on their own are not sufficient, and that other risk factors such as hypertension are also managed, that people who are still at risk can be offered the opportunity to use a statin, if they want to.

‘They don’t have to, and their decision should be informed by an understanding of the risks and tailored to their values and priorities.’

He added it would be the responsibility of GPs to explain the ways in which people can reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease, presenting all the options promoted by the draft guidance, including lifestyle changes, blood pressure control, avoidance of diabetes and cholesterol (lipid) lowering, and then letting patients to make their own decisions."

www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/clinical-areas/cardiovascular/gps-to-prescribe-statins-at-a-lower-risk-under-updated-draft-nice-guidance/

lizzypopbottle

UK GPs get paid for meeting targets. That includes a target for prescribing statins. So it pays them to get as many people on statins as they can. There was a thread on this last year and two contributors buffyfly9 and Primrose53 both with GP practice management experience posted this. (I hope they don't mind me quoting them but the thread from last August/September is probably still here on GN. I'll search for it.)

In his book, Too Many Pills, Dr James Le Fanu doesn't say people shouldn't take statins. What he says is that it you are at risk from familial hypercholesterolaemia (I think that's how you spell it!) or have history of heart attack or stroke, statins may well save your life. He also says that, for healthy individuals who happen to be over 60 years old, statins are not worth the side effects, if you get the muscle aches, raised blood sugar, brain fog sometimes diagnosed as dementia etc. He quotes research projects (often financed by big pharma) and several case histories of older people on several different medications that may well react adversely with each other. He concludes that statins are not beneficial for healthy 'oldies' and not at all for women! It's an interesting read.

I see you're quoting a post which was directed at me about writing prescription fees. They don't.

They do get paid for meeting targets, but if a patient is offered statins and refuses, that patient can be excluded from the audit statistics.

Thank you Lizzypopbottle

UK GPs get paid for meeting targets. That includes a target for prescribing statins. So it pays them to get as many people on statins as they can. There was a thread on this last year and two contributors buffyfly9 and Primrose53 both with GP practice management experience posted this. (I hope they don't mind me quoting them but the thread from last August/September is probably still here on GN. I'll search for it.)

In his book, Too Many Pills, Dr James Le Fanu doesn't say people shouldn't take statins. What he says is that it you are at risk from familial hypercholesterolaemia (I think that's how you spell it!) or have history of heart attack or stroke, statins may well save your life. He also says that, for healthy individuals who happen to be over 60 years old, statins are not worth the side effects, if you get the muscle aches, raised blood sugar, brain fog sometimes diagnosed as dementia etc. He quotes research projects (often financed by big pharma) and several case histories of older people on several different medications that may well react adversely with each other. He concludes that statins are not beneficial for healthy 'oldies' and not at all for women! It's an interesting read.

My view is no one holds a gun against your head so if you don't want to take statins, don't! I take them and the only side effect is a lower cholesterol with a healthy balance. I still eat sensibly and exercise regularly. Fwiw, GPs don't get paid for prescribing anything in the UK, including statins they do get paid for doing health checks.

I was told I needed statins nearly two years ago. I refused them put myself on a diet to reduce my cholesterol and started drinking those anti cholesterol drinks, a year later my health check said my level was fine. It's almost time for my annual check I hope my level is still OK.

growstuff

I expect Dr Le Fanu made quite a bit of money from selling his books.

You know, making money from selling books doesn’t mean that someone doesn’t believe what they wrote in the books.

maybe I wasn't clear enough growstuff...I didn't have high blood sugar.I didn't have type 2 diabetes for years before taking statins. after starting them I developed type 2. I stopped statins years ago. some people are fine with them ,some are not,I would never take them again

pably15

grow stuff, I didn't have a slight rise in blood sugar...I had type 2....and I had blood tests every year for years.before that...and my blood sugar was never raised .

So how many points did it increase by? Many studies have shown that the average is less than 1 mm/mmol.

pably15

exactly Biscuitmuncher, don't need much more evidence than that..when I started taking them gp's wanted cholesterol levels below 6...then it was changed to below 5....that would eventually include more and more people taking them....I tried different statins for years and I can tell you, I took a long time for the side effects to go away completely....

So ... they work for most people, but you would rather they refuse to take them because others (according to you) are making a profit.

people should try them for themselves, if they work for them with no bad side effects, that's good, but for some people the side effects are not worth it..

But millions take them without any side effects. Including me.
Don't let's put people off taking them. They save lives.