slow dissemination of new advice about statins

[Copepod]

"In the News" doesn't seem quite appropriate for a story about Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) taking 2 years to change advice to patients about potential side effects of statins. Ben Goldacre writes the at least weekly "Bad Science" column in the Guardian newspaper - some of the best science coverage in the British general media, in my opinion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/21/statins-side-effects-ben-goldacre

I'd like to highlight a couple of paragraphs, as this story is about the speed of changing advice to give patients proper information so they can make their own informed decisions:

"Now, before we go any further, we should be clear on one thing. There are lots of people who want to tell you that statins do more harm than good, and many of these people have vitamin pills and magic diet books to sell.

Back in the real world, the evidence shows that statins are effective: they reduce your risk of having a heart attack, and your risk of death over a given time period, but they reduce these risks as a proportion of your pre-existing risk, so if you are at high risk of having a heart attack to start with, a statin is more worthwhile than if you're moderate risk. Although, of course, you still have to decide if you're the kind of person who feels enthusiastic about taking a preventive drug every day for years on end."

 

[runner]

Thanks copepod, I'm one of those deciding not to take it routinely (it's part of GP practice policy to prescribe to all those with diabetes), being previously of 'low risk'. Any extra information to enable me to continually evaluate my decision is welcome.

 

[heliocentric]

When I was diagnosed (type 2) earlier this year i was prescribed simvastatin as a matter of course. they made me nauseous and i started getting mad cramp in my calves. I stopped taking them and have since learned that cramp can be a side effect of smvastatin.

 

[Northerner]

I think the last couple of paragraphs are also worth highlighting:

Why did it take so long? the MHRA ? the regulator of the pharmaceutical industry, which is funded by the pharmaceutical industry ? delayed for one reason: "One of the innovator MA [marketing authorisation] holders was not in agreement with this wording."

So a drug company has been able to delay the inclusion of safety warnings on a drug prescribed to 4 million people for 21 months because it didn't agree with the wording. There is no conceivable world in which this is a good thing

And they wonder why there is so much distrust!

Ben Goldacre is the business, I read him a lot back in the days when I could afford the Guardian every day. He has a website which is well worth visiting:

http://www.badscience.net/

 

[runner]

Hi all, yes, Northe - I've just come across his article about the swine flu vaccination programme, and followed your link and read about his comments about the cervical cancer vaccine article in the Express (what else would one extpect from the Express 😉)

It's a fine and common sense line to tread between accepting what may be good for us all and contraindications. All we can do is continually assess the situation on an individual basis. A little bit more honesty and less reactive courses of action, and more thorough evidenced-based decision-making on the part of the medical profession would be a good idea. Unfortunatley, there is not always time for this (pandemics etc.) but there is for routine prescribing presumed to be preventive.