Do you (or did you) take Statins?

Do you take statins?

  • I take statins and have no ill effects at all

    Votes: 12 27.3%

  • I take statins and may have some slight side effects but not enough to make me stop

    Votes: 4 9.1%

  • I had side effects with one type of statin, but now take another with no side effects

    Votes: 4 9.1%

  • I stopped statins because of side effects and would not take them again

    Votes: 10 22.7%

  • I stopped statins (because of side effects or another reason) but would consider taking them again

    Votes: 3 6.8%

  • I have never taken statins

    Votes: 11 25.0%
  • Total voters
    44
Status
Not open for further replies.
Would they account for dreams so vivid that in the morning you are convinced they happened? I was sure my OH had told me he was going into hospital I took quite a lot of convincing this wasn't so.
Its a horrible frightening feeling - like you've lost control!
 
As I said, simvastatin can do that, but most statins don't cross the blood brain barrier.
 
ChrisSamsDad said:
I stopped taking them because my I was worried about taking too many medications as there's a correlation with taking more than 3 meds and dementia.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with that correlation. Could you supply a reference, as I am currently on 6:confused:?
 
Mine are piling up. It's one more tablet I can't fancy taking as I've heard such bad things about it. I don't see the point of taking 'in case' meds anyway. I'll take them if the worst happens ie a stroke/heart attack. I take enough drugs as it is. Thyroid/high blood pressure.
 
Aye, Ditto , you are doing the best you can if your blood pressure is controlled, and you don't smoke.

That three medications thing is probably garbage, on the balance of probabilities. I don't seem to have had a reply to my request for references, at any rate. Must be struggling with the Daily Mail search facility.
 
What I find fascinating about the poll research so far is how close the composite groups of take/stopped/never taken are to thirds, with 'take' being slightly ahead, 'stopped' in the middle and 'never' slightly trailing.

When according to the official script side effects are extremely rare (expected to be far lower than 10% I think), and most people who experience them would be fine with another type.

Of course this is all completely unscientific, unfiltered, self-selected and wide-open to confirmation bias, but I am intrigued nonetheless!
 
ChrisSamsDad said:
I can't find the one I was thinking of, which I thought I saw on a TED talk from a professor of pharmacology, she talked of a study she'd been involved in, but did find these.
https://www.vumc.nl/afdelingen-themas/41463/27797/2089686/2090096/1702335/2.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2886086
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. These studies discuss polypharmacy and the effect of inappropriate medication in the elderly. There is no association with the number of medications, but the type of medication used in the elderly. Cognitive impairment is mentioned, but I cannot find anywhere anything to support your assertion that more three medications is correlated with dementia. It's not a correlation, it's an association. In other words, demented people tend to be on a lot of tablets as a result of their condition, not as a cause as your use of words suggest. Correlation and association are different things, so it might be an idea to delete that sentence from your post in case folk get worried by it. And the one before it.

If that prompted you to decline medication because you were on more than three, then you can relax. If you ever, heaven forbid, get demented you might be on more, but you won't care then 🙂
 
mikeyB said:
Thanks for that. These studies discuss polypharmacy and the effect of inappropriate medication in the elderly. There is no association with the number of medications, but the type of medication used in the elderly. Cognitive impairment is mentioned, but I cannot find anywhere anything to support your assertion that more three medications is correlated with dementia. It's not a correlation, it's an association. In other words, demented people tend to be on a lot of tablets as a result of their condition, not as a cause as your use of words suggest. Correlation and association are different things, so it might be an idea to delete that sentence from your post in case folk get worried by it. And the one before it.

If that prompted you to decline medication because you were on more than three, then you can relax. If you ever, heaven forbid, get demented you might be on more, but you won't care then 🙂
Click to expand...
Correlation just means association, I think you're talking about causation - driving a BMW is correlated with arrogance and boorish behaviour, it's not that one causes the other.

As I say, i can't find the study the professor I heard - and of course, the number was just a rule of thumb, it increases with the number of meds continuously. But in the Larsen study it does mention dementia-like symptoms, e.g. "The relative odds of an adverse reaction associated with cognitive impairment increased as the number of prescription drugs increased, exceeding 9.0 for patients taking four or more prescription drugs. "

Frankly, I think people should be concerned, and should ask for a review of their prescriptions periodically, and especially if something has changed.
 
In a couple of weeks it'll be 2 years on avastvastatin. Prescribed by hospital. I was in the heart ward because of a heart attack. Didn't do the talk they're supposed to to ensure compliance. Didn't even have a doc say anything about them. On day of discharge had nurse say they were waiting for my prescription from the pharmacy. Then hand be a paper bag as I was leaving: "here's your prescription"
 
ChrisSamsDad said:
Correlation just means association, I think you're talking about causation - driving a BMW is correlated with arrogance and boorish behaviour, it's not that one causes the other.

As I say, i can't find the study the professor I heard - and of course, the number was just a rule of thumb, it increases with the number of meds continuously. But in the Larsen study it does mention dementia-like symptoms, e.g. "The relative odds of an adverse reaction associated with cognitive impairment increased as the number of prescription drugs increased, exceeding 9.0 for patients taking four or more prescription drugs. "

Frankly, I think people should be concerned, and should ask for a review of their prescriptions periodically, and especially if something has changed.
Click to expand...

Correlation implies causation, association doesn't. And cognitive impairment is not dementia. Alcohol, for instance, causes cognitive impairment. I am on two medications that cause cognitive impairment - "if affected, do not drive or operate machinery". We've all seen that one.

You inferred correlation to mean causation, since you used that to inform your decision on taking extra tablets.
 
I take Atorvastatin with no side effects other than slightly increased blood sugar. I take them to help with a cardio condition and to get my HDL/LDL/Trig ratios right
 
I didn't get on with Simvastatin or Atorvastatin but i've been ok on Pravastatin for quite a while now

From a mathematic perspective, correlation does not imply causality. There could be a high degree of correlation between my BGs and the number of pigeons in trafalgar square but neither causes the other, so no causality.
 
Last edited:
mikeyB said:
Aye, Ditto , you are doing the best you can if your blood pressure is controlled, and you don't smoke.

That three medications thing is probably garbage, on the balance of probabilities. I don't seem to have had a reply to my request for references, at any rate. Must be struggling with the Daily Mail search facility.
Click to expand...
:-o
 
It's all entirely washing over me since as far as I am concerned, it's a purely academic discussion.

Since I have been rendered terrified of the ruddy things because of the effect they had on me - no way Pedro would I knowingly ingest another one.
 
mikeyB said:
Correlation implies causation, association doesn't.
.
Click to expand...

Got to disagree on this Mike.

There is a positive correlation between not eating breakfast and poor performance of school children. To my mind this is an association and should not simply be assumed to be a causal relationship. Yes, pupils who don’t eat breakfast perform less well than those who do eat breakfast, but; and this is a generalisation, children who don’t eat breakfast tend to come from poorer homes. Children in poorer homes are less likely to access to books, less likely to have parents who value education, are more likely to miss school or arrive late, have poorer diets, are less likely to be engaged in stimulating dialogue in the home.

So, yes pupils who don’t eat breakfast don’t perform as well as their peers, but the lack of breakfast may not be the actual cause per se as there are very many other factors involved.

Correlation may not always imply causality. Though I do stand willing to be corrected – it’s a tricky subject and too many years since I last used statistics in any depth.
 
Sorry, Mike, have to agree with Ref and Dave W, with my ex Maths teacher hat on again, the phrase is definitely "correlation does not imply causation".
 
Before diabetes I was prescribed atorvastatin, ok till dose increase, felt unwell and liver function tests not as good. Changed to simvastatin, and ok till first peep of summer and got prickly heat, then really unwell. Now been taking rosuvastatin and doing ok, and levels since diabetes have also improved.
 
Ive took simvastain which gave me cramps then I was put on atorvastatin and that didn't suit me as it made liver function go crazy I have had a kidney transplant so this may affect things
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top