• Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.
  • We seem to be having technical difficulties with new user accounts. If you are trying to register please check your Spam or Junk folder for your confirmation email. If you still haven't received a confirmation email, please reach out to our support inbox: support.forum@diabetes.org.uk

Statins

Status
This thread is now closed. Please contact Anna DUK, Ieva DUK or everydayupsanddowns if you would like it re-opened.
J

JohnCo

Member
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
Had my 12 week bloods yesterday! HbA1c down to 6.6, Cholesterol down to 4.1. So, quite happy with my progress!
However , my DN wants to start me on statins `because diabetics have sticky blood`. I know I have difficulty in getting drops out of my finger tips :D , but has anyone found any interesting research on the long term use of statins?
 
There's a great deal of controversy about statins John. They are powerful drugs and the drive to get people on them is based on the belief that cholesterol should be driven as low as possible. Since you are at 4.1 I'm surprised you are being pushed to take them - normally they like people with diabetes to have a cholesterol level of 4.0 or less, and yours is practically there anyway. Many people get side-effects, particularly muscle cramps, aches and soreness, although this is often solved by changing the type of statin.

I was put on them when diagnosed, but stopped taking them after 6 months, partly because of side-effects, partly because my chol had dropped to 2.4. My current consultant isn't pressing me to take them even though my levels are 4.5 currently, but my HDL cholesterol (the good stuff) is at a very good level. I also read that, out of 100 people who take them (who are not at risk of cardiovascular disease) only 3 would statistically benefit. Personally, I'd rather not take a powerful drug for such a tiny statistical benefit, but of course there are people who are in very different circumstances to me who do benefit.

If you use the 'Search' function you will find lots of threads about statins! 🙂

Congratulations on your HbA1c! 🙂
 
I sort of knew my HbA1c would be down Northerner, because I have cut out all my sugary, carbonated drinks! But I was really pleased at the cholesterol numbers as my mum has had problems as she aged.
Thanks for the link Vicsetter, how did you know I am most concerned about the risk of a cateract in my one eye? Very Interesting indeed.
 
John, I read a book called The Great Cholesterol Con which I found illuminating. I think it's worth reading up all sides of the argument so you can make an informed decision. I agree with Vic - sticky blood indeed! 🙄
 
JohnCo said:
Had my 12 week bloods yesterday! HbA1c down to 6.6, Cholesterol down to 4.1. So, quite happy with my progress!
However , my DN wants to start me on statins `because diabetics have sticky blood`. I know I have difficulty in getting drops out of my finger tips :D , but has anyone found any interesting research on the long term use of statins?
Click to expand...

The Heart Protection Study ( a long running British investigation) concludes that long term Statins are safe. See link below ....

http://www.theheart.org/article/1317213.do

Statins have been in use since the early nineties and they have helped to decimate severe heart attacks and the incidence of heart disease ( along with improved medical techniques). In the early 1990s STEMI Heart attacks ( the severe killers) were 60 % of all heart attacks in the USA ( there are 3 events defined as "Heart Attacks") but they are now down to just 20% of all heart attacks. And Statins are credited with a major role in that change - reducing ALL heart attacks and reducing the incidence of severe heart attacks as well.

All that is relevant to diabetics, especially Type 2s, since 80 % of T2s die of heart disease and another chunk of us from Strokes.

Research into Hunter Gatherer populations shows average Total Chols of 2.5 to 3 with negligible incidence of heart disease. At Total Chols of over 4 the incidence of heart disease among diabetics significantly increases, hence the target of keeping TCs under 4. But that is only a low hurdle most people can stumble over without much effort ( as with many Medical targets).

The particular problem that diabetics are heir to is Diabetic Dyslipidemia - raised LDL ( bad chol) and depressed HDL (good chol). That's why ratios and full Lipid panels are important. 4.1 TC with a poor Lipid panel would not be a great deal of use.

Ask for a full Lipid panel with ratios, perhaps the Nurse was looking at one when she recommended a Statin for you.

Ratios are important but the most important marker for heart disease is the absolute level of LDL which is best between 50 and 70 mgdl.

And if you do need a Statin don't be put off by the scaremongers - scaremongering about Statins is a major cottage industry on t'internet by low carbers, Cholesterol-deniers, anti-medication philosophers and conspiracy theorists of the big Pharmas.
 
Last edited:
Many thanks mcdonagh47 for your reply, but my HDL is at 1.0 at the moment - so could do with raising a bit to be well on the side of OK.
I will read that article when I get back from work tonight as I do listen to facts rather than opinion 🙂
 
And side effects that people have from statins aren't facts of course ....... :D

Personally I wanted to die with my memory which was disappearing. I knew nothing of side effects on either of the drugs I was taking - a BP one (an ARB because I had had side effects on the ACE I was originally prescribed, the ACE cough which drives you mad if you get it) but did wonder whether it was one of them so decided to try packing in the statin first as I really couldn't believe it was the BP one again. Within a fortnight I'd seen an improvement which continued.

Prior to trying this I seriously wondered if I had Alzheimers because it wasn't like just forgetting someone's birthday or an appointment, hat just happens, it's called getting older. What really floored me was forgetting my sister's name in the middle of a conversation with her - we were actually having a face to face discussion about something so it had my FULL attention and I opened my mouth to answer her and was going to say Well Gill, blah blah ... and I said 'Well' and instantly didn't know her name. And I'd only known her since my birth and for the next 57 years ...... plus I've only got the one. That type of thing was happening multiple times daily.

I thought about it and I would truthfully rather die of heart trouble with all my marbles than not have them.

OTOH you might not have any side effects. And still die of heart trouble !

And I always think you should actually read the entire research papers because the reports of various studies (statins and otherwise) and even the Conclusions drawn by the researchers themselves, have been known to be flawed to give a slant on the results that suits them at the time.
 
I am not a low carber, anti-med philosopher and nor do I buy into the conspiracy theories against big Pharmas.

I can only speak from personal experience and the reactions I experienced. My quality of life was severeley limited whilst taking simvastatin and even though I tried other makes, there was no let up. Brain fog, memory loss which made conversations difficult, chronic aching in all my joints, unable to drive due to pain, unable to leave the house on occasions as needed to be sitting down to alleviate the leg pain. Did consider if I might be better off using a wheelchair when I was getting so depressed about my reaction to statins. Sleepless nights due to constant pain which were not relieved by strong pain killers.

If you take them and they have no side effects then you cannot begin to know what it is like for people who find their effects unbearable on a daily basis. I wish I could have taken them but I had to make a decision, lead a lesser life and experience constant pain or leave well alone. I opted to leave well alone, a decision I do not regret. People have told me that they thought I was showing the signs of dementia in it's early stages whilst I carried on taking them.
 
trophywench said:
...And I always think you should actually read the entire research papers because the reports of various studies (statins and otherwise) and even the Conclusions drawn by the researchers themselves, have been known to be flawed to give a slant on the results that suits them at the time.
Click to expand...

Yes, my usual consultant is happy with me not taking them, and the stand-in consultant I had at my last review said that I really should take them and that there was no lower limit on what your cholesterol should be. He backed up this claim by citing a study done on some remote tribe in China who had levels in the low 2s and no evidence of CVD. But I'm not a member of a remote Chinese tribe. Also, although statistically in these studies a proportion of people benefit from taking them who's to say that if they did a study of people like me that no-one would benefit? Who knows, because they haven't done a study of people like me...

Even the consultants can't agree.

I'm not against them, or any medication that helps those who genuinely need it, but I am opposed to this mass medicalisation :(
 
mcdonagh47 said:
The Heart Protection Study ( a long running British investigation) concludes that long term Statins are safe. See link below ....

http://www.theheart.org/article/1317213.do

Statins have been in use since the early nineties and they have helped to decimate severe heart attacks and the incidence of heart disease ( along with improved medical techniques). In the early 1990s STEMI Heart attacks ( the severe killers) were 60 % of all heart attacks in the USA ( there are 3 events defined as "Heart Attacks") but they are now down to just 20% of all heart attacks. And Statins are credited with a major role in that change - reducing ALL heart attacks and reducing the incidence of severe heart attacks as well.

All that is relevant to diabetics, especially Type 2s, since 80 % of T2s die of heart disease and another chunk of us from Strokes.

Research into Hunter Gatherer populations shows average Total Chols of 2.5 to 3 with negligible incidence of heart disease. At Total Chols of over 4 the incidence of heart disease among diabetics significantly increases, hence the target of keeping TCs under 4. But that is only a low hurdle most people can stumble over without much effort ( as with many Medical targets).

The particular problem that diabetics are heir to is Diabetic Dyslipidemia - raised LDL ( bad chol) and depressed HDL (good chol). That's why ratios and full Lipid panels are important. 4.1 TC with a poor Lipid panel would not be a great deal of use.

Ask for a full Lipid panel with ratios, perhaps the Nurse was looking at one when she recommended a Statin for you.

Ratios are important but the most important marker for heart disease is the absolute level of LDL which is best between 50 and 70 mgdl.

And if you do need a Statin don't be put off by the scaremongers - scaremongering about Statins is a major cottage industry on t'internet by low carbers, Cholesterol-deniers, anti-medication philosophers and conspiracy theorists of the big Pharmas.
Click to expand...

The study used 40mg dose of simvastatin. It appears form people that suffer the side effects (which are listed on the patient leaflet) are on the upper doses of the statins. Simvastatin is one of the milder statins. As far as I could see the study also looked at cancer as a side effect of statins, I haven't heard of that being a side effect at all, muscle aches and mental deterioration being the common complaints.

Like the test strip problems that T2s have there is a problem where I am that an annual cholesterol test only gives one number total cholesterol because of the cost of the additional testing of LDL/HDL and triglycerides. When cholesterol targets are taken off QOF and someone can explain the scientific proof why statins reduce the incidence of CVD (i.e. not just based on statistics) then I might give them another go. Until then I shall avoid them and be happy.
 
For me this is very much an individual decision as to whether they are worth taking.

I don't agree with mass medication; I agreed to take take simvastatin for a number of reasons:

High family risk of heart problems (grandmother dying young of heart attack, father had by-pass & still has angina, aunt had a stroke, and an uncle who recently had a bleed on the brain), all had high cholesterol. Also I had no side-effects. We have a very large family!!

I have good total cholesterol of 3.5; when diagnosed the total was also normal at 4. something but the good/bad was not. So I went onto a low dose of 10mg and since then total reduced to 3.5 with the ratio being right. If it had made no difference I wouldn't have taken it as no point if it didn't improve my good/bad ratio.

I went onto a aspirin study for 3 months and had the full works with Triglyercides as well & they were 0.89 apparently these were the lowest they had seen at OCDEM (Oxford).

I'm happy to take the statin, but wouldn't increase dose unless cholesterol gets worse. My aunt who had a stroke was on them for her high cholesterol and she got a bit older so they upped her dose to 40mg, no reason as the 10mg was doing its work then not long after she had a stroke which has left her disabled. A bit of a coincidence as far as the family are concerned.

As I say up to the individual; you make your own informed decision after weighing up all your relevant facts. Certainly if I had any side-effect I wouldn't take the meds & look for other ways to reduce my risk. Seeing the angina pain and by-pass my dad went through I wouldn't want that either so I'm on the low dose statin & keeping a close watch on cholesterol levels etc.
 
Some very strong reasons above for me to do a lot more research into statins (as I thought there might be!), and as I have been known to `re-invent the wheel` before making choices, in the meantime I`ll eat more sardines on my tasty bloomer bread!! Maybe that will improve my HDL in the next 12 weeks! :-
 
Oh oily fish! Dear oily fish!
By far and away my favourite dish!
Infuse me with your Omega 3,
Please oily fish, come dine with me!

Oh, take away my chicken bhuna!
Replace it with a slab of tuna!
And though I love the taste of gammon,
I'd much prefer some Scottish salmon!

Imagine eating with every course
Some pilchards in tomato sauce!
If every herring could be mine,
Then life on Earth would be divine!

So, fill me up with oily fish!
Believe me, it?s my dearest wish!
My heart?s desire, where have you been?
Embrace me now, oh plump sardine!

:D

(c) Northerner 2010
 
Has anyone on here tried plant sterols to lower cholesterol? I too have been advised to take simvastatin even though my overall cholesterol is normal and my HDL very high. I've not taken this advice but am trying plant sterols instead as I don't fancy a tussle with the DN every time I see her. It would be interesting to know if anyone else has had success using this alternative.
 
I used them Jill.
There was a 10% reduction for me. The only draw back is that they are expensive.
 
Northerner said:
Oh oily fish! Dear oily fish!
By far and away my favourite dish!
Infuse me with your Omega 3,
Please oily fish, come dine with me!

Oh, take away my chicken bhuna!
Replace it with a slab of tuna!
And though I love the taste of gammon,
I'd much prefer some Scottish salmon!

Imagine eating with every course
Some pilchards in tomato sauce!
If every herring could be mine,
Then life on Earth would be divine!

So, fill me up with oily fish!
Believe me, it?s my dearest wish!
My heart?s desire, where have you been?
Embrace me now, oh plump sardine!

:D

(c) Northerner 2010
Click to expand...

Wow! Like one of those musicals, suddenly Northerner burst into poetry! Love it.
 
Status
This thread is now closed. Please contact Anna DUK, Ieva DUK or everydayupsanddowns if you would like it re-opened.
Back
Top