Cholesteral Level

[suzy10]

Hi Everyone,
Please can you advise me what to do. I have only been a type 2 for about 5 months and when I was diagnosed my cholesteral was 5.7 My GP said she wanted me to go onto a statin as it was best for diabetics to have a cholesteral level of 4. I agreed to this but was not happy as I have to take quite a few different medications for a condition called Guillian-Barre Syndrome which I had as a child.

I went last week to have a blood test to check liver function and cholesteral and I got the results this morning. My cholesteral is now 2.7 which is amazing but as well as taking the tablet I am on a low fat diet. I spoke to the diabetic nurse and said surely I no longer need to take this med as I know there are long term side effects to this drug. The nurse has advised me to keep taking it as she said it also protects inflamation of the arteries which diabetics can get. I thought I could come off it and see in 3 months what the level is then, see if it has gone up then we could act accordingly.

Can anyone advise me please as once again I'm very confused and hate taking all these pills.

Many Thanks

Suzy

 

[Pumper_Sue]

Hi Suzy,
no one can advise you take or not take the pills. But can suggest you do your research. Where you will prob find they are a money making tool for GP's(they are pd to prescribe them) and also of no benefit to women.
Did the GP tell you what your ratio was, if not why not?
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a barge poll 🙂

 

[suzy10]

Hi Sue, thanks for getting back to me.
Can you tell me why you wouldn't touch them? Sorry I'm so naive but I'm worried now.

Suzy

 

[Pumper_Sue]

Hi Sue, thanks for getting back to me.
Can you tell me why you wouldn't touch them? Sorry I'm so naive but I'm worried now.

Suzy

Have you read the side effects? Also as there is no evidence that they do any good why take them?
Just do a google search then decide what you want to do. Plenty do take them with no problems. But as I said it's just my personal view.

 

[AJLang]

Hi my view may be quite different from quite a lot of other people on here but I'm happy to have my statin. Having had a retinal vein occlusion (blocked vein in the eye which means that my sight is badly affected) I would more than happily keep my cholesterol as low as is safely possible in order to prevent a blockage in a blood vessel anywhere else. Including my daily statin I have 105 tablets a week (as well as insulin and eye drops) and have already managed 40 years with diabetes!

 

[Robster65]

Hi suzy

Although there is a lot of controversy about statins and a lot of conflicting claims, as I understand it, the medical profession are in favour of them because of studies that indicate they are beneficial in most cases.

I'm not in any position to support these studies but have spoken to my GP about it and continue to take them, pending a blood test I had done, which will indicate if I am prone to serious side effects.

I personally don't believe they are merely being prescribed for profit or as part of a wider conspiracy.🙂

But there are cases where they are not appropriate and it is always a personal choice whether to take them or not.

Rob

 

[Northerner]

I was pretty similar to you Suzy - started on statins after diagnosis and my cholesterol dipped to 2.4. At that point I began questioning the necessity of taking them, and also asked the question of what is the safest LOW level to have. I didn't get a satisfactory reply so I did my own research as others have suggested here and decided that they were not for me. Your body needs cholesterol for every cell it builds, so it's not like we can live without it! My reading also lead me to believe that driving down cholesterol at all costs was not necessarily as beneficial as it might sound, as there is a greater incidence of strokes at very low levels.

In any case, out of 100 people taking statins who have not had any cardiac problems, three will be statistically better off - the other 97 will not be any better off than if they didn't take them. I decided to take that risk when weighted against taking a powerful medicine for the rest of my life. Since then, my cholesterol level has hovered around the 4.5 level and my consultant is happy with that as my ratio of good HDL to bad LDL is very good.

It's thought that statins actually provide their benefits not in lowering cholesterol but in protecting against inflammation. I would go back to your doctor after researching more. A good book I read on the subject was the Great Cholesterol con, reviewed here:

http://www.diabetessupport.co.uk/boards/showthread.php?t=4114

 

[mcdonagh47]

Hi Everyone,
Please can you advise me what to do. I have only been a type 2 for about 5 months and when I was diagnosed my cholesteral was 5.7 My GP said she wanted me to go onto a statin as it was best for diabetics to have a cholesteral level of 4. I agreed to this but was not happy as I have to take quite a few different medications for a condition called Guillian-Barre Syndrome which I had as a child.

Can anyone advise me please as once again I'm very confused and hate taking all these pills.

Many Thanks

Suzy

Hi Suzy,
for us Type 2 Diabetics the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse ride together - Overweight/obesity, hypertension (high blood pressure), dyslipidemia (high cholesterol) and insulin Resistance. The conjunction is called the Metabolic Syndrome and they act together and exacerbate each other.
It is important to tackle all four of those as soon as they appear. 80% of Type 2s die of cardiovascular causes and dyslipiemia is one of the main contributors to that.
Bierman's researches in the 1990s showed that lowering Cholesterol Levels to under 4 were of great benefit to Diabetics in the fight against heart disease. And that is the target range we must aim for. In particualr we have to get LDL down into safe ranges, and statins do that extremely well.
So the nurse did right on putting you on a statin when you TC was 5.7 and as you can see the statin has worked well for you without any apparent side effects. So I would say continue taking it.
When large trials have been done the side effects of statins ( mainly minor muscle pain) have been no more than those experienced by the triallists on the placebo so you shouldn't worry too much about possibe side effects. Recent research has also shown that the really potentially damaging side effect, rhabdomyalsis, is no more likely to occur in statin users than in non users.
Statins have aroused some heated debate, precisely because they are so important and so widespread : you will always get a vociferous minority trying to proof that it is a Flat Earth, in this instance that Cholesterol isn't associated with Heart Disease and that Statins have no benefit. ( Both of which are untrue). And of course you can take the insistent conspiracy theorists with a pinch of salt.
So as a T2 diabetic you are at high risk of heart disease, the statin is one of your main reducers of that risk and its consequences. Its clearly working for you so I say continue with it. Perhaps ask to reduce the dose and see how that works.
And if you want some reading on the matter , read Chapter 7 of "Diabetes Essentials" by James H. O'Keefe.

 

[Northerner]

mcdonagh, have you ever come across any research that shows what a safe lower limit is? I'd be interested to read it, as whenever I've asked the question I've never had a proper answer.

 

[MargB]

I am happy to take Simvastatin. Was taking it long before being diagnosed diabetic but the dosage was doubled after diagnosis. I am from a high risk family and one sibling has already died of a massive heart attack.

My tablets keep me alive and help me live an almost normal life. I have long got over the need to be medicine free.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Suzy

Do you know what your Chol breakdown is? HDL/LDL/Trigs?

They have been gently suggested to me before (last level was 5.1 I think) but as Northerner says my breakdown is pretty good and Trigs very low so it has never been more than mentioned in passing.

I gather that lowish/moderate carb diets tend to promote lower chol (and with better splits too).

M

 

[Northerner]

...But can suggest you do your research. Where you will prob find they are a money making tool for GP's(they are pd to prescribe them) and also of no benefit to women....

In the interests of balance, it's not strictly true that GPs are paid to prescribe them, rather they are paid by results when a patient achieves a level of 4.0 or below - often with the aid of statins. Also, I think that they are not recommended for women of child-rearing age and show little benefit in older women, from what I have read (I'm neither a doctor nor a scientist!).

 

[HelenM]

It's one of those subjects that causes a lot of controversy on forums but many doctors will say that all people with diabetes should be on a statin
http://www.theheart.org/article/1129713.do

It used to be true that there was little evidence of statin effectiveness in women, a lot of the earlier trials had few women. That isn't the case now, certainly for older women. (over 60) The Jupiter trial included over 6000 of them.
http://health.msn.com/health-topics...en-with-normal-cholesterol-be-taking-a-statin

 

[mcdonagh47]

It's one of those subjects that causes a lot of controversy on forums but many doctors will say that all people with diabetes should be on a statin
http://www.theheart.org/article/1129713.do

It used to be true that there was little evidence of statin effectiveness in women, a lot of the earlier trials had few women. That isn't the case now, certainly for older women. (over 60) The Jupiter trial included over 6000 of them.
http://health.msn.com/health-topics...en-with-normal-cholesterol-be-taking-a-statin

Thanks for the Jupiter ref Helen, its one of the most amazing claims ( that statins dont benefit women) made by the anti-statin lobby. And they seem impervious to reason and evidence - they simply go on repeating it time after time!
Statins are also of great interest to post menopausal women because they are thought to promote the formation of bone and bone density which will help in osteoporosis and with falls etc.

 

[mcdonagh47]

In the interests of balance, it's not strictly true that GPs are paid to prescribe them, rather they are paid by results when a patient achieves a level of 4.0 or below - often with the aid of statins. Also, I think that they are not recommended for women of child-rearing age and show little benefit in older women, from what I have read (I'm neither a doctor nor a scientist!).

"Its not strictly true that GPs are paid to prescribe them"
No Northerner - its NOT true AT ALL !!!

 

[Robster65]

Would it be fairer to say that GPs are given financial incentives for the number of patients who are within certain thresholds in key health areas, such as cholestorol, HbA1c, etc.

Obviously, this is going to benefit patients and will cost the surgery in prescriptions, so they are probably not going to see it as a cash cow and prescribe unless they think there will be an improvement.

Some GPs, however, may not fully understand all of the arguments, in the same way some don't fully unerstand diabetes.🙂

Rob

 

[Northerner]

"Its not strictly true that GPs are paid to prescribe them"
No Northerner - its NOT true AT ALL !!!

It's a moot point. Many doctors seem happy to prescribe statins, even where there is little benefit, yet refuse to allow the same patient to test their levels and educate them how to use the results which I suspect might be much better at reducing people's risk of later problems and for many people would improve their quality of life.

 

[Pumper_Sue]

There's some interesting info here to read
http://www.thecholesteroltruth.com/...sterol-truth?gclid=CNqi3rKV7akCFZRX4QodDliCWA

At the end of the day though it is up to the individual to take or not to take as the case may be.

 

[Ellie Jones]

I don't take statins but my husband does we'll both T1 diabetics..

Les started on them before the 'great debate' the advise of his doc and our DSN even though his cholesteral was in the 3's... He was originally on simvistan which did give him muscle problems for quite a while until we found out what caused it! So he stopped taking them his level didn't change that much, but stated taking a different statin brand called Rosuvastatins... No muscle problems..

I chose not to take statins because my levels are in pretty good, under 4 so that's fine by me.. My GP and DSN do nag about taking them for my diabetes, but after discussing it with my consultant several times over the years he's happy with my results and my decission... I have more trust in my consultant than my GP..

But it is the case that it's a case of doing the research, getting your full results so that you can compare the HDL,LDL and Trigs... Then see how you feel is right for you..

 

[Vicsetter]

"Its not strictly true that GPs are paid to prescribe them"
No Northerner - its NOT true AT ALL !!!

GP practices are paid according to how they meet QOF targets and cholesterol levels are one of the targets. PCT also pay or compensate GP practices for prescribing cholesterol drugs (like simvastatin) so I don't see how you can say that!