Statins and Retinopathy

[Ivy]

I recently stopped taking my statins, as agreed with my GP. But I've been thinking about how one of the reasons my doctor recommended I start taking them is that they can help prevent the worsening of retinopathy.

What are everyone's opinions on this subject? I can't seem to find much helpful info on it.

 

[Northerner]

They weren't 'sold' to me on the basis that they would help with retinopathy - the important factors in that respect were maintaining good blood pressure and blood glucose levels, although there was this report recently that linked cholesterol to macular degeneration:

http://www.diabetessupport.co.uk/boards/showthread.php?t=36272

That's not about statins though. Do you have a problem with retinopathy currently?

 

[Ivy]

That's not about statins though. Do you have a problem with retinopathy currently?

Yes, I have mild retinopathy in one eye and moderate in the other, with cotton wool spots. It's been stable for quite a while now though.

 

[Twitchy]

Hello....don't know if this helps but I've had background & proliferative retinopathy (now stable thankfully) & noone's ever mentioned statins to me...hope I've not missed a trick lol! 😉

 

[Ivy]

Hello....don't know if this helps but I've had background & proliferative retinopathy (now stable thankfully) & noone's ever mentioned statins to me...hope I've not missed a trick lol! 😉

Well I was also given it for my Cholesterol, but that's now in the normal range now I've lowered my Hbalc. I agreed with my GP that if my cholesterol goes up again I'll resume taking them. I'll discuss it in clinic cause I'm there soon.

THanks for the replies 🙂

 

[PattiEvans]

Ivy, I recall you are 22 years old and from your nick I presume you are female. No female of child bearing age should be on statins as they are known to be teratogens i.e they cause abnormalities in fetuses. So any GP putting any young lady on them should be 100% certain that lady wouldn't have any likelyhood of being pregnant. Many GPs don't seem to realise this.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Ivy, I recall you are 22 years old and from your nick I presume you are female. No female of child bearing age should be on statins as they are known to be teratogens i.e they cause abnormalities in fetuses. So any GP putting any young lady on them should be 100% certain that lady wouldn't have any likelyhood of being pregnant. Many GPs don't seem to realise this.

There seems to be some ongoing discussion about tetratogenic risk to humans in the research community with recognised 'risk of bias' in some of the published data.

This review from 2012 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23032657) concluded that the risk to human embyros is probably slightly lower than was once thought, and suggests that it's not been absolutely proven, but that it hasn't been ruled out either. I guess like many things for people TTC it would be a personal decision based on perceived risk of taking (or not taking) a medication suggested by a Dr.

Regarding statins and retinopathy...

This study on rats thinks it's a good idea: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819293/

This article isn't giving much away about what they found, apart from what they hoped they might: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17620536

And finally parts of the ACCORD Eye Study data (http://www.nei.nih.gov/news/pressreleases/062910.asp) seem to suggest a statin and fibrate combo have more effect than intensive BP management

In addition, compared with simvastatin treatment alone, combination lipid therapy with fenofibrate plus simvastatin also reduced disease progression by about one-third, from 10.2 percent to 6.5 percent, over four years. No prior clinical trial has shown that the combination of fenofibrate and simvastatin reduces diabetic eye disease progression.

 

[mcdonagh47]

There seems to be some ongoing discussion about tetratogenic risk to humans in the research community with recognised of 'risk of bias' in some of the published data.

This review from 2012 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23032657) concluded that the risk to human embyros is probably slightly lower than was once thought, and suggests that it's not been absolutely proven,

so Patti's statement that statins "are known to be teratogens i.e they cause abnormalities in foetuses" is just UNTRUE then ? They are not "known" to be that at all. The latest piece of research actually concludes that statins are "not likely" to be teratogens.

You're a Moderator can you delete that phrase from her post please ?
Unsupported wild assertions like this are alarming for young women at a vulnerable time of their lives and they are the kind of thing that give Support Groups like this a bad name among medics.

Patti's claims about this were disproven on this very Support Group a couple of years ago by HelenP I think
Any body search the archives ?

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

The latest piece of research actually concludes that statins are "not likely" to be teratogens.

Actually the link I posted states that

Since initial premarketing studies of lovastatin in animals, teratogenesis has been assumed to be a classwide function of statins' mechanism of action. Data from human exposure during pregnancy have been gathered and analyzed in a variety of study formats to formulate useable conclusions on statins' actual teratogenic risk and pattern of associated birth defects. Although the current trend is that actual risk is lower than once thought, the available literature is limited by potential reporting bias, contains overlap in the data, and frequently lacks numbers of total exposures to statins during pregnancy with reported malformations.

So what the round-up of research from Sept 2012 suggests to me is that while some studies show teratogenesis in animals it is unclear how much (if any) risk this poses to human pregnancy, particularly since some of the newer statins were not in circulation during the early trials.

The GP notebook (http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=x20070211072151295600) currently states this:

no controlled studies demonstrate teratogenic effects in humans; however, case reports have documented congenital anomalies, including vertebral, anal, cardiac, tracheal, esophageal, renal, and limb deficiency (VACTERL association), intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR), and demise in fetuses exposed during pregnancy, especially in the first trimester. It is thought that adverse events are under-reported and likely biased toward severe outcomes, thereby limiting actual reported exposures

it seems prudent to recommend that a woman should have stopped statin therapy for at least three months before trying to conceive

Which is why I suggested that it was a matter for women TTC that they consider the potential risks/benefits to health of taking or not taking statins. ie whether they perceive the risk of not taking a statin to their own health to be greater than the possible (but as yet unclear) risk of taking statins while pregnant or TTC.

 

[Northerner]

so Patti's statement that statins "are known to be teratogens i.e they cause abnormalities in foetuses" is just UNTRUE then ? They are not "known" to be that at all. The latest piece of research actually concludes that statins are "not likely" to be teratogens.

You're a Moderator can you delete that phrase from her post please ?
Unsupported wild assertions like this are alarming for young women at a vulnerable time of their lives and they are the kind of thing that give Support Groups like this a bad name among medics.

Patti's claims about this were disproven on this very Support Group a couple of years ago by HelenP I think
Any body search the archives ?

To my way of thinking, unless they are conclusively proved to be not dangerous (rather than 'not likely') then it's a risk the OP needs to think very carefully about - particularly since there is no actual problem with her cholesterol levels.

 

[mcdonagh47]

To my way of thinking, unless they are conclusively proved to be not dangerous (rather than 'not likely') then it's a risk the OP needs to think very carefully about - particularly since there is no actual problem with her cholesterol levels.

You are stating the obvious but that doesn't excuse untrue, wild assertions being made on this Support Group.
Please have the goodness to remove Patti's statement that statins are "KNOWN" to be teratogenic .
They are NOT known to be so, the jury is still out as you and another Moderator both admit. So how can you allow distorted untruths to stand ?
As I said this kind of unsupported wild assertion is the kind of thing that gets Support Groups like this a bad name and leads to medics warning folks against them.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Personally I think it's important on a discussion board for people to be allowed to express their own (different) opinions. Then others can make up their own minds.

 

[gabriele]

so Patti's statement that statins "are known to be teratogens i.e they cause abnormalities in foetuses" is just UNTRUE then ? They are not "known" to be that at all. The latest piece of research actually concludes that statins are "not likely" to be teratogens.

You're a Moderator can you delete that phrase from her post please ?
Unsupported wild assertions like this are alarming for young women at a vulnerable time of their lives and they are the kind of thing that give Support Groups like this a bad name among medics.

Patti's claims about this were disproven on this very Support Group a couple of years ago by HelenP I think
Any body search the archives ?

Sorry to interfere in this discussion . But now I'm very confused.
So far the threat was very good, because I take statins and I have retinopathy.
But why would you delete someones opinion or statement ? There are many things in a Forum which are not proven or true or something else, but delete it ?
The purpose of a forum is to talk about things not delete them .

Best
Gabi

 

[mcdonagh47]

Sorry to interfere in this discussion . But now I'm very confused.
So far the threat was very good, because I take statins and I have retinopathy.
But why would you delete someones opinion or statement ? There are many things in a Forum which are not proven or true or something else, but delete it ?
The purpose of a forum is to talk about things not delete them .

Best
Gabi

I think you will find with greater experience of this Support Group that it is one of the most heavily censored/moderated groups going with posts being continually altered by Mods and Admin and threads been shut down arbitrarily when they start to get interesting with a real clashes of views being expressed.

 

[AlisonM]

I think you will find with greater experience of this Support Group that it is one of the most heavily censored/moderated groups going with posts being continually altered by Mods and Admin and threads been shut down arbitrarily when they start to get interesting with a real clashes of views being expressed.

For your information. In the nearly three years I've been a mod here, I've edited one post (other than correcting links) and only ever deleted posts from Spammers, unless asked by the poster or someone has launched a personal attack. The others all believe as I do that less is more.

 

[Northerner]

I think you will find with greater experience of this Support Group that it is one of the most heavily censored/moderated groups going with posts being continually altered by Mods and Admin and threads been shut down arbitrarily when they start to get interesting with a real clashes of views being expressed.

That is absolute nonsense as the Moderator log would clearly show if you were able to examine it.

 

[Twitchy]

I have to say I think that on this forum the mods do a difficult job with great tact & sensitivity...in their own time after all. As for the statins scenario - surely better safe than sorry? As a 'woman of child bearing age' I'd far rather be slighly alarmed than not know & have a damaged child & forever wonder if it was anything that I could have prevented. Just my thoughts, but I hope we've all got enough sense & humanity to agree to disagree sometimes? 🙂