Statins for all over 55

[mcdonagh47]

Several years ago some Docs were saying everyone over 50 should be on Metformin because of its heart protection qualities , now its Statins....

"Everyone over 55 should be offered statins to cut their risk of heart attacks and strokes, no matter how high their cholesterol or blood pressure readings, a leading doctor said last night.
Professor Sir Nicholas Wald said prescribing cholesterol-busting statins and blood pressure pills based on age alone would be much easier and quicker than the current system."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ALL-55s-declares-professor.html#ixzz1LToHAZxO

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1383708/Statins-prescribed-ALL-55s-declares-professor.html

 

[Caroline]

Sounds like he is getting a bonus from the drug companies for pushing these things, or am I being a tad cynical?

 

[margie]

They just had an article on the news - their argument was that age is the biggest risk factor when it came to strokes or heart attacks, and that it picks up 84% or so of those at risk which is almost the same rate as screening tests identify. Hence you could use age rather than tests. That seemed to be the theory.

Its all about cost again ....

 

[Northerner]

But it has to be nonsense surely? Why take BP meds if your BP is OK, or even low, just because you are over 55? And nothing would convince me to take statins if my cholesterol was below 2.5 (as it was when I decided to stop them). OK they may have other suspected, but unproven benefits, but they also have a very significant effect on things that may prove to outweigh those benefits. They say 'no matter how high your cholesterol', but do they also mean 'no matter how LOW your cholesterol?'. This blanket medicalisation of the population is lunacy really. How will a couple of pills help people stay healthy if they are still smoking and living on junk food?

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Compulsory statins? That should please the makers of liver and kidney disease treatments...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/may/21/statins-liver-kidney-problems

 

[margie]

But it has to be nonsense surely? Why take BP meds if your BP is OK, or even low, just because you are over 55? And nothing would convince me to take statins if my cholesterol was below 2.5 (as it was when I decided to stop them). OK they may have other suspected, but unproven benefits, but they also have a very significant effect on things that may prove to outweigh those benefits. They say 'no matter how high your cholesterol', but do they also mean 'no matter how LOW your cholesterol?'. This blanket medicalisation of the population is lunacy really. How will a couple of pills help people stay healthy if they are still smoking and living on junk food?

Not sure that sense comes into it just a quick way of saving money by not doing tests. Though even that makes no sense as how would you determine the right dose and of course they couldn't make you take them anyway. If I took BP tablets I would probably be dizzy all the time as my BP tends to be on the low side.

 

[FM001]

Not sure what to make of this, I suppose as diabetics we are at a heightened risk of CVD and strokes and due to this I would more than likely take up the offer of a lower dose to reduce the risks, as for everyone over 55 well that will surely come down to the individual and whether they are prepared to take the risk or not.

 

[Pumper_Sue]

Sounds to me as if someone has shares in the companies that make statins 🙄
Research shows that they are no use what so ever to women anyway.
The side effects are 😱
Positives? Oh yes they line the pockets of manufactures
Cynical, me? Nah never.

 

[mcdonagh47]

"Everyone over 55 should be offered statins to cut their risk of heart attacks and strokes,

A fuller account of the story is here ...

http://allinstew.co.uk/2011/05/study-calls-for-heart-drugs-at-55/

 

[Northerner]

A fuller account of the story is here ...

http://allinstew.co.uk/2011/05/study-calls-for-heart-drugs-at-55/

Thanks 🙂 Surely the statement 'Everyone would benefit because, for blood pressure and cholesterol, the lower the better.' is nonsense? Low blood pressure can be a serious problem for a lot of people, and of course I'm not convinced that cholesterol levels can be driven down to extremely low levels since it is essential to life. There doesn't appear to be any mention of the risks of medicating people who don't need it, or might suffer unnecessary side effects.

 

[Vicsetter]

First time I've seen Dr Rosemary Leonard talking sensibly, in saying that you would get more people suffering the side effects of medicines that weren't needed, like the side effects of statins. The whole thing seems based on statistics. If your over 55 then you are more likely to suffer stroke or heart attack therefore you can be given pills and not bother an expensive doctor😱. Where do they get these idiots from? Statistics show that people over a certain age are liable to get Type 2 diabetes, so lets save the NHS money and give everyone over 40 insulin just in case. No need to bother a doctor.

 

[Pumper_Sue]

Thanks 🙂 Surely the statement 'Everyone would benefit because, for blood pressure and cholesterol, the lower the better.' is nonsense? Low blood pressure can be a serious problem for a lot of people, and of course I'm not convinced that cholesterol levels can be driven down to extremely low levels since it is essential to life. There doesn't appear to be any mention of the risks of medicating people who don't need it, or might suffer unnecessary side effects.

I'm one of those that has low BP. Infact I take medication to make my BP stay up rather than floor board level.

 

[Blythespirit]

I heard about this quite while ago and agree with all that has been said here. My added concerns would be that if they are doled out to every one a lot of people will think they are not important and not take them when they might need them. Also people who have to pay for their prescriptions may not bother either. Blanket prescriptions based on age will never take the place of tests which pick up other conditions such as diabetes, kidney desease etc. XXXXX

 

[Northerner]

I heard about this quite while ago and agree with all that has been said here. My added concerns would be that if they are doled out to every one a lot of people will think they are not important and not take them when they might need them. Also people who have to pay for their prescriptions may not bother either. Blanket prescriptions based on age will never take the place of tests which pick up other conditions such as diabetes, kidney desease etc. XXXXX

I think that also a lot of people wuold think that they didn't have to bother so much to look after themselves if they thought that a couple of pills would do the job instead.

 

[Northerner]

First time I've seen Dr Rosemary Leonard talking sensibly, in saying that you would get more people suffering the side effects of medicines that weren't needed, like the side effects of statins. The whole thing seems based on statistics. If your over 55 then you are more likely to suffer stroke or heart attack therefore you can be given pills and not bother an expensive doctor😱. Where do they get these idiots from? Statistics show that people over a certain age are liable to get Type 2 diabetes, so lets save the NHS money and give everyone over 40 insulin just in case. No need to bother a doctor.

I just managed to watch the video (didn't work fr me last night) and I agree, she seemed to be hitting a brick wall with that bloke and it was clear that neither Bill nor Sian could see the sense in the Professor's argument. This sort of thing is something that often annoys me about 'studies', in that they deal with theoretical populations and suggest this can be used to override tha particulat requirements of the individual. For example, it may be largely the case that people on insulin need a 60:40 split of bolus:basal insulin, and 1 unit per 10g carbs, but trying to apply that to everyone would cause severe problems for a lot of people - you have to treat people as individuals. It may be more expensive to do so, but it is in the best interests of the patient to tailor medication to their requirements, not according to some table or chart.

 

[Vicsetter]

At the end of the day it doesn't cost that much to see a GP for 10 minutes, have a blood pressure reading and take a blood sample. Probably about the same as a years supply of generic metformin.

 

[mcdonagh47]

I think that also a lot of people wuold think that they didn't have to bother so much to look after themselves if they thought that a couple of pills would do the job instead.

They are groping thier way towards the mythical PolyPill - a single pill popped every day that will cover all the bases for the over 50s and promote good health.

There can be no doubt that Statins have been a fantastic sucess since they were introduced in the mid 90s - they have decimated serious killing heart attacks and the lastest research earlier this year show they are saving 10,000 lives a year.

The side effects are largely minor and not noticed by the vast majority despite all the doom and gloom and negativity on Diabetic support boards such as this.

 

[Northerner]

...The side effects are largely minor and not noticed by the vast majority despite all the doom and gloom and negativity on Diabetic support boards such as this.

I wouldn't call it 'doom and gloom' if people report genuine problems that disappear when they stop taking them, or maybe change to different ones. You shouldn't belittle people's experiences as you have no idea how they feel for the people reporting them. Obviously, the majority of people don't get side-effects, and many have reported as such here, otherwise it would be a far more difficult job getting people to take them. I'd have no objection to them being prescribed for people with a genuine need for them, but I suspect a lot of prescribing is 'lazy' - diabetic = statin etc.

 

[Vicsetter]

There can be no doubt that Statins have been a fantastic sucess since they were introduced in the mid 90s - they have decimated serious killing heart attacks and the lastest research earlier this year show they are saving 10,000 lives a year.

The side effects are largely minor and not noticed by the vast majority despite all the doom and gloom and negativity on Diabetic support boards such as this.

I don't know where you got the 'decimated'. According to the telegraph report in January (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8267570/Millions-taking-statins-needlessly.html) complaining about the needless current prescribing of statins, the use of statins is attributed to a 10% reduction in deaths (hardly decimated).

Those of us that have suffered the side effects of statins wouldn't describe them as minor. Where is the doom and gloom and negativity, we are merely relaying what has happened to us.

BTW can you have a killing heart attack that is not serious? All heart attacks are serious!

 

[mcdonagh47]

I don't know where you got the 'decimated'. According to the telegraph report in January (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8267570/Millions-taking-statins-needlessly.html) complaining about the needless current prescribing of statins, the use of statins is attributed to a 10% reduction in deaths (hardly decimated).

Those of us that have suffered the side effects of statins wouldn't describe them as minor. Where is the doom and gloom and negativity, we are merely relaying what has happened to us.

BTW can you have a killing heart attack that is not serious? All heart attacks are serious!

1. The Telegraph is actually reporting a study that found the efficacy of statins but posed a rhetorical question whether widespread usage in order to save 10,000 lives a year was justified. presumably the 10,000 people who wpould die this year without statins would say Yes it is justified. Didn't the 10% figure relate to "all cause " mortality not speficially heart attacks ?

2. I'm not belittling anyone's persoan;l experience on statins, I merely commented on the knee jerk negativity that seems to permeate ALL the diabetic support groups about statins.

3. Three events are classed as "Heart Attacks" - STEMI MIs, non-Stemi MIs and Unstable Angina. STEMI MIs are the serious killing heart attacks and non-Stemi MIs are mild heart attacks usually in people over seventy ( the heart is staying its "tired and ________ out after a long squawk")
In 1990 STEMI MIs formed 60% of all heart attacks in the USA but now non-Stemi MIs account for 60% of them. And the two reasons given for the dramatic change ? Improved medical procedures and the widespread use of STATINS since the mid 90s.

BTW a 10% reduction IS decimation - reduction by a tenth. After a bad defeat a Roman Legion would be lined up and every tenth man decimated - dragged out of the line and killed ;-)