One Trial After Another

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wholeheartedly agree it potentially helps a teensy proportion of the general population but of course that depends on those few people not being in the group that suffer debilitating side effects.

Of course any one of us might fall into that number - but in my way of looking at it, it's more than slightly misleading to say 'it helps the general population' as if it helps an appreciable number of folk. Cos it doesn't.

If it helps keep their GPs and diabetes consultants from whingeing at them constantly then perhaps that's very important too. Cos actually, funnily enough I had bad side effects and that's why I stopped taking them - they're sposed to prevent me having CVD - well OK I didn't get it after I started taking them but now in FULL knowledge that they affected my brain - they're still shoving them at me. Sorry, I'm knocking 70 mate - certainly in the Autumn of my 3 score years and ten - I'm buggered if I'm deliberately going to wreck my QOL to enable you to tick a bloody box.

Each individual must make up his or her own mind - nobody can tell him or her what to do.

Just present the facts and the reasons why they do or don't take em.

Anyway when you've sorted your chol - some other thing will start getting out of range numbers - with myself it's now low sodium. I've given up all the drugs 'the experts' say could have caused it so I don't know what else I can do - and neither do they!
 
travellor said:
It's a bit like crossing the road.
If you don't look, and don't get run over, you can't prove looking helps.

But, like statins, it doesn't harm.
And, like statins, it seems to help the general population.

So I'll keep taking my chances.
I'll look when I cross the road, and I'll take statins to stop high cholesterol causing a CV event.
Click to expand...

The best you can say is that statins may decrease your risk of a CV event, not that they will stop it.

For some, statins do cause harm. I am another of the so-called small minority who found the side effects much worse than any slight possible benefit. For years I put increasing pain down to arthritis. Once I stopped the statins I was also fairly quickly able to stop taking the meloxicam prescribed for arthritis pain, and the omeprazole prescribed to counteract possible side effects of the meloxicam. Quality of life greatly improved since.

@EndymionXT , your doctor may advise you to take statins, but it is entirely your choice as to whether you take them, and if you do choose to take them, it is your choice as to whether you continue to take them. Do your research, and if you do decide to take them, keep an eye out for side effects!
 
No side effects, a decreased risk of a cv event, I'll stay on them.
 
Statins significantly reduce CV death & major events for people at risk. It's not just a "teensy" number of people, or any of the other noxious little anti-statin Internet shibboleths. And the risk of side-effects is very small. These statements are supported by the overwhelming weight of evidence and considered expert opinion. You would have to be extraordinarily naive or deluded to pay attention to the contrary opinions of people posting on message boards, when the expert views are so consistent and so readily available.

Here's a nice concise summary, totally in-line in all major respects with just about any other expert summary you can find: https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardi...ence-on-efficacy-and-safety-of-statin-therapy

Statin therapy reduces major adverse cardiovascular events (myocardial infarctions, strokes and death) and all-cause mortality in patients with or at risk for ASCVD.

In a meta-analysis of 27 randomized trials and 174,000 participants, for every ~40 mg/dL LDL-C reduction [ie, about 1 mmol/L] with statin therapy, the relative risk of major adverse cardiovascular events is reduced by ~20-25%, and all-cause mortality is reduced by 10%. More intense statin regimens yield a 15% further proportional reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events compared to less intense regimens.11 These relative reductions are similar in primary vs. secondary prevention, lower vs. higher-risk, men vs. women, and also similar in other major subgroups. The reduction in all-cause mortality is primarily driven by reductions in deaths due to coronary artery disease (20% relative reduction) and other cardiac causes (10% relative reduction).
 
However small the risk of side effects might be, for those who DO suffer them, life may be much better without the statins, and for me it definitely IS. On statins, considerable pain, and a reduced ability to enjoy my favourite activities. Post-statins, much less pain, much better quality of life.
 
It's a teensy number of the whole population of the world because the actual number of individuals who get CVD for any reason is relatively small anyway and not everyone dies from it because there are so many better treatments for it now - quadruple bypasses, and ditto diagnostics - look how quickly hospitals jump into action when they think someone's had or having a stroke these days, and the specific drugs that, if they apply, need to be delivered within a very short time frame (it's one hour or something like that) to have the best effect - so they try to do i

1% of all deaths in the UK in 2015 were from cardio vascular causes (just over 2,900 per 1m. There were just under 300,000 deaths per 1m population here that year.) So put every single one of the 65 (in 2015) million on a statin no matter they are only 1 month old or aged 99 with normal chol figures or any other reason under the sun - it's compulsory) You have now reduced deaths by CVD by 20%.

It's very difficult to actually weigh up your own risk of dying of anything if you ask me! But - whilst being aware of all sorts of things, like global warming, death by Brexit boredom, being knocked over crossing the road or falling off a roof - and too right I reduce the latter risk by not going up on any roof - I still travel hopefully Eddy!
 
If you take Metformin and a statin and suffer side effects which make you feel suicidal, I was told that there is no way to report it - it took three goes for me to get it recorded in my notes - so of course they are safe and benign - there is no evidence written down about the problems.
 
I don’t deny their effectiveness at a population level @Eddy Edson - though it is hard for me to understand the reduction in risk when it is presented as ‘relative risk’ reduction in percentages.

Another way of looking at the same information is to consider NNT (the ‘number needed to treat’ in order to prevent one non-fatal CV event). The Hope-3 trial was the last I looked at, and the NNT was 91 people treated for 5 years in order to prevent 1 non-fatal heart attack or stroke. That was a big trial into Primary Prevention - taking statins if you have never had a heart attack in order to prevent one.

Statins make perfect sense at a population level, especially if there are no (or a very low level of) adverse events. And that is what the official trial data suggests. Though you can see that it is not necessarily the experience of some members here.

I have full respect for people who take statins and also understand those who have decided not to take them because of the side effects they experienced as individuals or whatever reason.

Having said that, of course, as people living with diabetes we are already at elevated risk of heart attack and stroke, so any potential reduction in risk is well worth considering.
 
Last edited:
To me diabetes is an overall condition, I'll take stock of all aspects of it.
I'll take the NTT odds.
If enough on here are happy without statins to reduce their own chances, that'll put me in the population that is prevented from a heart attack or stroke.
.
 
travellor said:
To me diabetes is an overall condition, I'll take stock of all aspects of it.
I'll take the NTT odds.
If enough on here are happy without statins to reduce their own chances, that'll put me in the population that is prevented from a heart attack or stroke.
.
Click to expand...
The behaviour of others will do nothing to change your risk - and it is risk. No population is prevented from a CV event, you can only change your risk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
silentsquirrel said:
The behaviour of others will do nothing to change your risk - and it is risk. No population is prevented from a CV event, you can only change your risk.
Click to expand...

Very eloquent
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top