It appears to me that drug dealers, whether they are legal or illegal are so bent on making the maximum profit that they could care less about those who purchase their product...
2
What about all the studies (or at least the Swedish study) showing that the outcomes from statin iuse are not any better than not using statins? Factoring in better treatment during and post heart attack, has anyone shown statins really do anything helpful? Isn't all the science, versus drug trials, showing that the cause of heart disease is inflammation?
1
I am a retired Pharmacist in San Diego. I use to have several patients complaining to me about muscle pain. After checking their profile and noticing that they were taking statins, I would suggest they check with Dr. and ask if they could stop for a few days to see if the statin is the cause. I couldn't tell them to stop because that would not be ethical. The Dr. would always tell them the muscle pain was from old age. I tried statins 3 times myself. The first one was Zocor which caused some bad cramps. Then I tried Lipitor and woke up with cramps in both legs that lasted for 3 hours. The final one was Crestor which cause so much muscle pain that I could hardly get out of bed and could not exercise. After stopping each drug the side effects vanished which is the only way to determine which drugs is causing the problem. I reported all this information to Dr Golomb at UCSD Statin Study. Then I was tested by Dr Paul Phillips in San Diego for Statin toxicity and the test proved that Statins are toxic to my body. I have had 4 close friends who have experienced major side effects from Statins. One who was diabetic couldn't get out of bed and felt he was dying .Another has neuropathy in hands and feet. Another after 5 years on Liptor sounded like he had dementia and had to learn to walk. After a zillion tests, they took him off Lipitor and he got better after several months. They found no stroke or any other reason for problems. Real cases and real people.
4
The truth is that statins, in my opinion, do not prevent heart disease. My husband's family is a case in point. Sixty years ago, my husband's father dies of a heart attack at the age of 40. He came into the hospital the day before mother's Day, and my grandfather was the attending physician. Back then, an EKG was the standard test. It was normal and he was kept over night. During the night he just died. My husband, although on statins, had a quadruple bypass, my husband's brother, also on statins, had a mild heart attack, and had stents. Their brother in Holland has recently had stents put in as has his son who had a heart attack at the age of 38 plus his sister who is even younger had a heart scare and is on statins. All of them in Holland, have hardly used a car, only bicycles, and had a diet with lots of vegetables and whole grains. The wife of the brother and mother of the two young adults has no heart issues. My two children were fed a diet with only 6% fat but high in healthy carbohydrates and whole grains. Neither of my children have heart issues or high cholesterol. My husband's sister, who is a retired nurse, is also on statins, and has been overweight most of her adult life. Her 3 children are also overweight. She says it is family history. I believe it is some of both, genetics, diet, exercise, etc. My side of the family, has longevity up to age 100. My husband's side of the family were all Mennonites with inter breeding, poor genetically.
1
"minimal side effects?"
They caused me serious problems. They caused my mother serious problems. I could barely get up and down the stairs. When I stopped the statins, the problems stopped, and for my mother too. I was told by our pharmacist this is common, that he gets complaints on it constantly.
Who paid for that large, rigorous trial? Who ran it?
They caused me serious problems. They caused my mother serious problems. I could barely get up and down the stairs. When I stopped the statins, the problems stopped, and for my mother too. I was told by our pharmacist this is common, that he gets complaints on it constantly.
Who paid for that large, rigorous trial? Who ran it?
10
The biggest nightmare for Big-Pharma [the thing that really keeps them up at night] is the fear that every American will make small, incremental changes to their diet [eat better] and walk or do light exercise 15 minutes a day.
8
All you have to do is look on amazon for the many books written by medical doctors who speak out about the dangers , side effects, and quite frankly, the LACK OF NECESSITY of statins.
7
I tried red yeast rice (not effective) and niacin (could never tolerate a high enough dose) before taking a statin. I have been through four varieties of statins and all caused muscle pain. I decided with the last iteration to just gut it out, and, lo, the pain subsided eventually. I'm still taking a statin and it's tolerable.
1
My personal experience makes me a believer in muscle pain as a side effect of taking statins. I am 57, and I run 4 miles or swim 3/4 of a mile pretty much every day. About 4 years ago my doctor put me on statins for high cholesterol. I knew nothing about potential side effects and had no reason to believe the statins would cause any. Almost immediately after starting on the drugs my
muscles would ache during normal exercise. After a couple of weeks of enduring muscle pain I looked on the internet and found that muscle ache is a common side effect. In fact, I recall that a story in the NY Times was my first source of info about the side effects. I stopped taking the statins. I have a lot more faith in exercise.
muscles would ache during normal exercise. After a couple of weeks of enduring muscle pain I looked on the internet and found that muscle ache is a common side effect. In fact, I recall that a story in the NY Times was my first source of info about the side effects. I stopped taking the statins. I have a lot more faith in exercise.
9
just change your diet , and no more cholesterol problem , no more need for any drugs to lower it , all these expensive new drugs and all the trial studies , etc all because folks wont change their diets and all of us pay the price for it
2
1. You're wrong about diet. My cardiologist told me that diet and exercise won't control it.
2. Just like my cardiologist you keep mentioning "it". I assume that like him, you're referring to "high cholesterol". Or maybe "high LDL". If so, you've already bought into the myth.
The myth is that there is a scientifically-defined "cholesterol problem". Heck, my own "cholesterol problem" disappeared when the most recent Cholesterol Guidelines panel raised the LDL level to 190 before one qualifies for a statin. Miracle, oh thank you! I'm cured!
Except that my own statin experience (7 months, 20 mg simvastatin) took away my ability to walk.
2. Just like my cardiologist you keep mentioning "it". I assume that like him, you're referring to "high cholesterol". Or maybe "high LDL". If so, you've already bought into the myth.
The myth is that there is a scientifically-defined "cholesterol problem". Heck, my own "cholesterol problem" disappeared when the most recent Cholesterol Guidelines panel raised the LDL level to 190 before one qualifies for a statin. Miracle, oh thank you! I'm cured!
Except that my own statin experience (7 months, 20 mg simvastatin) took away my ability to walk.
9
I didn't want to go on a statin but my numbers were high. So before just taking medication I changed my diet, lost 60 pounds over a 10-month period and increased my already good activity level. The result: my cholesterol levels increased slightly. It's not always about diet. There are genetics at play as well.
4
Here's SOME of the money that Dr Stephen L Kopecky received from...holy smokes, Regeneron!!!
I'm not a reporter, so all I did was check his 2014 Dollars for Docs at Pro Publica. Why doesn't the NY Times check out the real dollars?
I'm not saying anything about Dr K in particular. Most of us know that our healthcare system is massively corrupted by Big Pharma money. It's totally possible that Dr K is uninfluenced by Regeneron, for example, isn't it?
It's nice and all that a statin-prescriber at least believes that statins cause problems. And for Regneron, it's the profit-driven time to acknowledge this fact: because we now have a very expensive new drug to take the place of this less-profitable old one.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 01/10/2014 $2,211.75
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 01/10/2014 $43,463.70
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 06/26/2014 $540.00
This is a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel-group, multi-national, multi-center study of alirocumab REGN727 SAR236553 in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and moderate, high, or very high CV risk, who are intolerant to statins.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 07/11/2014 $20,916.00
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 10/10/2014 $3,654.00
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 12/18/2014 $762.16
I'm not a reporter, so all I did was check his 2014 Dollars for Docs at Pro Publica. Why doesn't the NY Times check out the real dollars?
I'm not saying anything about Dr K in particular. Most of us know that our healthcare system is massively corrupted by Big Pharma money. It's totally possible that Dr K is uninfluenced by Regeneron, for example, isn't it?
It's nice and all that a statin-prescriber at least believes that statins cause problems. And for Regneron, it's the profit-driven time to acknowledge this fact: because we now have a very expensive new drug to take the place of this less-profitable old one.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 01/10/2014 $2,211.75
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 01/10/2014 $43,463.70
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 06/26/2014 $540.00
This is a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel-group, multi-national, multi-center study of alirocumab REGN727 SAR236553 in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and moderate, high, or very high CV risk, who are intolerant to statins.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 07/11/2014 $20,916.00
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 10/10/2014 $3,654.00
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 12/18/2014 $762.16
9
Having seen so many comments to this article, we've started a website: http://statinvictims.weebly.com/
All we want is a photo or two and a couple of hundred words describing how statins have wrecked or diminished the quality of life of you or someone you love.
My neuromuscular specialist told me that if we had a pool of DNA info on each of the thousands of statin victims, we might be able to do scientific study into the diseases that statins trigger in so many people.
DNA tests are becoming inexpensive. Our entrance into this statin experiment may even help with research into other autoimmune neuromuscular diseases, and thus turn our suffering into something that could help others.
All we want is a photo or two and a couple of hundred words describing how statins have wrecked or diminished the quality of life of you or someone you love.
My neuromuscular specialist told me that if we had a pool of DNA info on each of the thousands of statin victims, we might be able to do scientific study into the diseases that statins trigger in so many people.
DNA tests are becoming inexpensive. Our entrance into this statin experiment may even help with research into other autoimmune neuromuscular diseases, and thus turn our suffering into something that could help others.
6
It would have been helpful if the article had mentioned that cholesterol is a substance essential to proper functioning of every cell in the body, and that our bodies produce cholesterol because it is, well, essential. Are we just so lazy that we can't be bothered to improve our diet? Or do we love taking pills and pouring our money into the pockets of the drug companies so much? Eating right and exercising doesn't come in pill form. The drug companies should not even be allowed to market drugs which are exorbitantly expensive. If they can't bring something reasonable priced to the market, then it isn't ready yet. Meanwhile we'll get along as we always have.
6
I hate statin drugs, but don't blame the victims.
I exercised, ate extremely well, and at 70 was training for my second trek in the Himalayas--Everest Base Camp this time. Annapurna trek at 69.
What health problems did I have? None: just so-called "high cholesterol".
I've recently had an extensive cardiovascular test series: no problems. I can run my pulse at 140 for 45 minutes, and drop it to 110 or so in a minute. Very fit, lucky me.
Except that coincident with 7 months of low-dose statin, I lost the ability to walk more than a block or so. Take a look: http://statinvictims.weebly.com/
I exercised, ate extremely well, and at 70 was training for my second trek in the Himalayas--Everest Base Camp this time. Annapurna trek at 69.
What health problems did I have? None: just so-called "high cholesterol".
I've recently had an extensive cardiovascular test series: no problems. I can run my pulse at 140 for 45 minutes, and drop it to 110 or so in a minute. Very fit, lucky me.
Except that coincident with 7 months of low-dose statin, I lost the ability to walk more than a block or so. Take a look: http://statinvictims.weebly.com/
7
The idea that statins have "minimal" side effects is simply a marketing statement. Like aspartame, which causes migraine headaches in about 20% of the population, statins cause severe muscle cramps in many people, % known publically, but certainly the FDA knows. Statins are also linked to cognitive problems, the "statin fog" that primary care doctors know about, but which is not acknowledged in the medical press. Truth is that we do not know the "right" cholesterol level, particularly in people over age 65. We recall the "J-shaped curve" that we were taught about 20 years ago regarding blood pressure in older patients - in other words, do NOT lower BP too low in older patients, for fear of increasing the ischemic penumbra in their brains, causing them to seem demented. The same thing is happening to some older patients on statins - in that there is a reversible cognitive decline in some patients, and this needs to be taken seriously. Not ever patient can tolerate statins - and the pharmaceutical industry knows it well, to the point that they are seeking indications for new drugs specifically for patients who cannot tolerate statins. The idea that statins cause "minimal" side effects is a myth - either you can tolerate them, or you cannot - but in patients who cannot, the side effects are life altering, and hardly minimal. Please NY Times, return to the days when you actually researched topics instead of just Googling them.
10
So much clinical research is now of very poor quality that it is difficult to know what to make of doctors who put more faith in research studies than what their patients report to them. John Ionnadis, M.D. has done a great deal or research on research, especially on research published in the most respected journals and has found that most published research is false. Either it has not been replicated, or been contradicted by further research. Why is it then, that so many people, doctors, scientists, lawyers, and other officials in position continue to rely on what in so many cases proves to be nonsense? Not only are statins much more fraught with side effects, but a large body of research evidence, which is also largely (apparantly) ignored here in this article and in the medical community shows that statins are overall ineffective at doing what they claim to do, namely prevent cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease. They are associated with improvement only for a small subset of patients who have had a cerebrovascular or cardiovascular event. What is so shocking is that the author of this finds this all so perplexing, indicating, he is not at all on top of this situation. As for the new confident drugs, we can be confident, based on the FDA's track record that they have not been adequately vetted before being released onto the market. They should be avoided until the long term studies on safety and efficacy have been completed. Or, you play Russian Roullette.
7
You're a physician and you say "No one underplays the fact that some patients may develop side effects, with various levels of severity, mild moderate or severe." Well, I can give you the name of one particular Dr. that is no longer my Dr. because of his pushing of statins as well as some tests and inoculations that he tried to push on me but I refused, which leads me to believe he is definitely getting a check from Big Pharma because of his pushing me to do this and that. Needless to say if he did that with me, he does that with all his other patients. Besides that, another thing that doesn't sit well with me about this Dr. is, he reminds me of Orson Wells, I hope you're old enough to remember when he was the brunt of jokes because of his weight, because this who this Dr. resembles. Just doesn't sit well with me to have a 300 lb physician putting the lean on me to take this and that and take this test and that, when he should know better that his weight is a health hazard.
2
I could not tolerate statins. The muscle pain, aches, and mental haze made me feel like I was 100 years old. I told my doctor I was not going to take them any more. The quality of my life was just so awful, I told him I would be glad to die ten to fifteen years earlier without them. He then sent me to a lipid specialist, who put me on Livalo and my cholesterol numbers improved dramatically. My insurance company refused to pay for the drug due to the cost. I said, "Fine, I won't take it, and you can pay for all my medical bills when I have a heart attack and stroke." My doctor and I fought with the insurance company for six months, and now they pay for the drug, and I am feeling so much better!
5
THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH requires doctors to place higher importance upon the wellbeing of the patient before personal gain. Since the drug companies are, in effect, providing medication required for the treatment of patients, I believe that their corporate charters should be required to include language to the effect that when the drugs are ready to go to market, they must take into account the patients' ability to pay above and beyond the corporate profits, inflated salaries for top executives, and shareholders of corporate stock. Only then will the providers of substances developed and used exclusively for patient care be required to adhere to the Hipprocatic Oath. They do not adhere to those princples since during the Reagan years, the language included in corporate charters no longer need to describe concretely the benefit to the community that could be brought about only by creation of the corporate entity. It is high time that big pharma companies be brought to heel cocerning its attitude toward providing medical care for human beings versus pure greed for the top executives and stockholders. In my opinion, the rights and needs of the consumers (in this case, patients) must become the guiding principle for permitting corporate charters.
3
How about not eating meat? That's the easiest way to reduce cholesterol levels for the vast majority of people! God forbid we try a simple, common sense solution when expensive drugs with side effects are available. Cholesterol does not exist in plants! Period. Animals produce cholesterol. Humans are animals. We generally produce just the right amount of cholesterol for ourselves. If we have high cholesterol overwhelming odds are we are eating too much cholesterol laden meat and dairy! Oh, but that would make too much sense and the drug companies and doctors couldn't profit! Oh, and animals wouldn't have to suffer. No... let's not try that. It's official. Our society is sick....
5
@Jane Velez-Mitchell:
Fatty animal foods are nutrient dense and quite satiating to the appetite. Eating these foods does raise total cholesterol (which has never been shown to harmful), but it also raises HDL cholesterol (beneficial), lowers triglycerides (beneficial), and decreases LDL particle number (also beneficial). Especially if fatty animal foods are replacing refined carbs in the diet.
Dietary cholesterol has little to no effect on blood serum cholesterol, even Ancel Keys admitted that. If we have abnormal cholesterol, overwhelming odds are we are eating too much sugar and flour.
Fatty animal foods are nutrient dense and quite satiating to the appetite. Eating these foods does raise total cholesterol (which has never been shown to harmful), but it also raises HDL cholesterol (beneficial), lowers triglycerides (beneficial), and decreases LDL particle number (also beneficial). Especially if fatty animal foods are replacing refined carbs in the diet.
Dietary cholesterol has little to no effect on blood serum cholesterol, even Ancel Keys admitted that. If we have abnormal cholesterol, overwhelming odds are we are eating too much sugar and flour.
5
The vegans just won't stop posting on this site.
It has been totally debunked that eggs, which are loaded with cholesterol, cause your cholesterol to increase. A quick Google search on this topic, a review of a couple of articles, and perhaps you will stop spouting this nonsense to justify being a vegan.
Can't you just say you're a vegan because you don't want to use animals for food, without making up stuff about health?
It has been totally debunked that eggs, which are loaded with cholesterol, cause your cholesterol to increase. A quick Google search on this topic, a review of a couple of articles, and perhaps you will stop spouting this nonsense to justify being a vegan.
Can't you just say you're a vegan because you don't want to use animals for food, without making up stuff about health?
5
sorry Joseph. I'm a non-fat vegan for health reasons. Not because I don't want to "use animals for food." Going fat-free and vegan made a huge difference for me. I don't think there's anything wrong with posting what works for oneself. Others can consider it and choose to try it. In additional to all my blood testing results looking so much better, my rheumatoid arthritis symptoms have improved and I have stretched out my medication for that from one week to ten days. So I don't think you can paint all vegans with the same paintbrush.
1
There is a substantial literature documenting that a substantial percentage of patients who report statin intolerance are Vitamin D deficient and that raising Vitamin D levels with supplements actually renders them statin tolerant. Here's a pubmed search link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vitamin+D+and+statin+intolerance
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vitamin+D+and+statin+intolerance
3
The high cost is most certainly due to the current restrictions on the new drugs use. Pending of completion of the current safety/efficacy tests due to be completed in 2017, these drugs are limited to use in a very restricted patient class those who have a sky high coloresterol level that cannot be lowered with Statins. The companies are pricing the products for that limited market.
When the restrictions come off the companies or competitors/purchasers will seek to expand the market in part by lowering the price.
When the restrictions come off the companies or competitors/purchasers will seek to expand the market in part by lowering the price.
After taking statins for 15 years I now have diabates and statin myopathy at 59 years old. Until a couple of years ago I was exercising vigorously 6 days a week. The side effects can be crippling, but difficult to prove. For me, the muscle pain that had been slighly annoying before ramped up when my dose was increased. Eventually I stopped, but the pain did not go way. I can barely walk. It is clear by clinical data that statins destroy muscle cells.
I had no family history of heart problems or dIabetes or muscle diseases. Why did I ever take this poison? Every month more studies come out that confirm the dangers and marginal benefits. And for many the side effects don't go away.
I had no family history of heart problems or dIabetes or muscle diseases. Why did I ever take this poison? Every month more studies come out that confirm the dangers and marginal benefits. And for many the side effects don't go away.
9
The end of this article explains precisely why American health care is so high. It describes a 72 year old woman with breast cancer and a recent heart attack, who is worried about side effects from a new medicine, which is very expensive, five years from now. Our clocks do not tick forever, at least not yet. This woman has both cancer and severe coronary artery disease, yet she and her doctor will gladly spend every dollar in the American treasury to bombard her with treatments that will not extend her life more than about 10 minutes, and will actually REDUCE her quality of the life she has remaining, because of the profound immaturity our society has about death. Ms. Peterson needs to eat what she wants, do what she wants, and enjoy the time she has left. She, her doctor, and the rest of our lawsuit-loving society really need to grow up. Now. We're almost out of money.
12
I think it is extremely unlikely that the truly massive and well conducted clinical trials on these drugs are simply not reflective of the "in the real world" experience of patients. I take a statin myself and probably 1/3 of my own patients are on statins (not prescribed by me, mind you), Regardless, the question of whether or not there are some patients who have these side effects on statins is a completely answerable one. Although a variety of designs are possible, you could take just those patients who presumably need a cholesterol lowering drug and who have previously discontinued a statin due to side effects. Then, you can randomize them in double blinded fashion to either placebo or a statin in each of four three month blocks of time and have them document whether they have muscle aches and pains (or other side effects) daily. You should identify pretty rapidly if there is a real issue or not. I suspect the most likely scenario is that muscle aches and pains happen to everybody at various times, and become more frequent as we age, statins or not.
@Aaron:
How about answering whether or not "high cholesterol" is a real issue (it's not), and whether or not statins do anything for average person with no history of heart disease (they don't).
How about answering whether or not "high cholesterol" is a real issue (it's not), and whether or not statins do anything for average person with no history of heart disease (they don't).
5
I have a question. When will the US government seize the recipes for these drugs, that apparently everybody should be on, and mass produce them for general consumption? Damn the pharmaceutical companies. $14,000 a year. Gimme a break.
-CM
-CM
2
Why isn't the reason the new drugs cost $14,000 a year probed in this article?
The drug companies, which are breaking records for profits every single year, don't deserve some searching questioning on this score?
For God's sakes, who created this dilemma?
Instead, we're left with how inconvenient it is for the doctors, who are being pestered with what are apparently legitimate, and very widespread, complaints about statin side-effects (which, by the way, have a long history and in the case of at least some statins were severe enough- there were deaths - that they were pulled off the market.)
So we're not bringing up THOSE side-effects - the deaths?
The drug companies, which are breaking records for profits every single year, don't deserve some searching questioning on this score?
For God's sakes, who created this dilemma?
Instead, we're left with how inconvenient it is for the doctors, who are being pestered with what are apparently legitimate, and very widespread, complaints about statin side-effects (which, by the way, have a long history and in the case of at least some statins were severe enough- there were deaths - that they were pulled off the market.)
So we're not bringing up THOSE side-effects - the deaths?
8
I wonder if it would be possible to accurately factor-in the potential financial savings flowing from reduced ambulance-runs, emergency room visits, acute hospital-admissions, surgeries, rehabilitation hospital-stays, nursing home stays and Social Secuirty Disability payments.
1
Are you talking about the savings that would occur if many people stopped taking the massively overprescribed statin drugs? They'd be HUGE!
Then statins could be prescribed conservatively, as all drugs should be. No, they should NOT be in the water supply! (That statement is attributed to Dr Ken Reckless. Seriously.)
Then statins could be prescribed conservatively, as all drugs should be. No, they should NOT be in the water supply! (That statement is attributed to Dr Ken Reckless. Seriously.)
5
During my 26 year tenure with TRW I had complete physicals every other year and my cholesterol was never higher than 147 and all the rest of the indicators were right on the money. Yet at age 50 and again at 65 I experienced heart attacks. After the last one in 2007 I asked the head of Cardiology at Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles why have I had two heart attacks? He replied we are finding out that cholesterol is not the problem. it's inflammation. Yet he prescribed a statin "Lipitor", within a month I couldn't move my head side to side, experienced muscle atrophy and while sleeping I had such bad leg cramps that I couldn't sleep. I stopped taking Lipitor "Cold Turkey" and didn't look back. NEVER AGAIN. It took 6 months before the cramps stopped and I started to regain the muscles in my upper body. I still have lingering problems after 8 years. My cholesterol is still under 150.
12
Your doctor is a jackass. As for your listening to him...perhaps you should reconsider how much both he and his colleagues really KNOW and how much they tell their patients by rote! One thing...dead patients never complain!
6
I took statins years ago and collapsed, I had to pull myself up a flight of stairs. That was most certainly not a placebo effect.
11
I am a physician and as a disclaimer, I work in the pharmaceutical industry. The comments reveals some truth, but many misconceptions, I, and most physicians in my age group, take statins, because we understand the benefits and risks. We pay for them like everyone else. No one underplays the fact that some patients may develop side effects, with various levels of severity, mild moderate or severe. It is disingenuous to state that adverse events are under reported in clinical trials. It is actually mandated by law, they pharmaceutical companies solicit reports of adverse events and report them to the health authorities. The product information invariably reports the frequency of these adverse events, as well as the observed benefits. No one denies the fact that some patients have complete statin intolerance. Similarly, the clinical benefits of statins, with respect to preventing strokes, heart attacks, and cardiovascular death is indisputable. It is also indisputable that these drugs have reduced the rates cardiovascular morbidity and mortality from what they were even a decade ago. PCSK9 inhibitors may prove to provide similar benefits, for those who do not tolerate statins. We should know in another four years or so. Those who wish to relay on voodoo, or faith, to solve their medical problems, are free to do so. I'll take my medications as prescribed, thank you.
13
You're a doctor. Statins are a bilions a year scam put forth by your colleagues and the the PHARMAS, but you can't see that. Which says a lot about what you know. Keep taking "my medications as prescribed..." , after all the doctor knows best...NOT!
You write: "It is also indisputable that these drugs have reduced the rates cardiovascular morbidity and mortality from what they were even a decade ago." In truth, it's very DISPUTABLE, Doc! Name for us lay persons the studies which show that these meds prevented deaths. Actually they are non-existent, since you'd need to know in advance who the folks were who were going to die, and then supply them with the meds to show they didn't die.
Maybe all those who lived would have lived anyway even if they never heard of a statin, eh? Hate to say it doc, but you may know your "medicine", but your logic is absent, and your critical thinking skills needs some meds. Sorry for the rather harsh reply, but perhaps eventually the truth will come out.
The medical/pharma complex puts profits before patients EVERY TIME...and anyone who can think knows its true, especially in the good old USA. Basically the docs and farmers are gutless. We all know treating the symptoms instead of the disease is simply barking up the wrong tree.
You write: "It is also indisputable that these drugs have reduced the rates cardiovascular morbidity and mortality from what they were even a decade ago." In truth, it's very DISPUTABLE, Doc! Name for us lay persons the studies which show that these meds prevented deaths. Actually they are non-existent, since you'd need to know in advance who the folks were who were going to die, and then supply them with the meds to show they didn't die.
Maybe all those who lived would have lived anyway even if they never heard of a statin, eh? Hate to say it doc, but you may know your "medicine", but your logic is absent, and your critical thinking skills needs some meds. Sorry for the rather harsh reply, but perhaps eventually the truth will come out.
The medical/pharma complex puts profits before patients EVERY TIME...and anyone who can think knows its true, especially in the good old USA. Basically the docs and farmers are gutless. We all know treating the symptoms instead of the disease is simply barking up the wrong tree.
4
just change your diet doc and no need for statins but alas you work for the pharmaceutical industry that profits from folks NOT changing their diets or lifestyles in any measurable manner because a pound of cure costs way more than an ounce of prevention - its "physicians" like you that do not work to prevent high cholesterol through dietary changes that keep this nation sick and drugged and broke
3
And if you are over a certain age, chances are you went through four years of medical school without even having a single lecture on nutrition. And it's smoking cessation, not statins, that has reduced the risk of heart attacks.
Statins, like Hormone Replacement Therapy, Amphetamine diet Pills, Valium, and Vioxx are over prescribed and the consequences of over prescription are voluminous. All of the doctors who prescribed these other drugs were "well informed" mostly by Pharma, they had convincing data and it took years in each case for the harm to be identified, recognized and accepted. Physicians were reluctant to accept the developing evidence of harm and often shrugged of their patient's complaints for years. It is just a matter of time for the preponderance of evidence end "Statins for all". Very sad that the "Precautionary Principal" is not followed diligently and that pharmaceutical company data is excluded from analysis of side effects. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." Pharmaceutical companies that suppress data should have their assets liquidated and seized and their corporate charter terminated. If corporations are people they must be punished as a person would.
5
Let's try again. I'm allergic to sulfanilamide and the statins seemed to be based on it or something similar. Red yeast rice apparently is related to it. Another of my medications for height blood pressure (Micardis HCT) contains a relative.
I managed to convince my HBP doctor to drop the HCT Micardis and to let me use Zetia for cholesterol. While I have blood pressure and cholesterol issues, I so far do not have heart problems.
I believe the problem we have with drug side effects results from the fact that our doctors don't always familiarize themselves with the long, wordy information about drugs. When the folder/pamphlet says black on white that people allergic to something should avoid the medication we should. Our doctors should be good enough at least to check out the included info. Most of us complaining about symptoms are women. Perhaps a man wrote the included information.
I managed to convince my HBP doctor to drop the HCT Micardis and to let me use Zetia for cholesterol. While I have blood pressure and cholesterol issues, I so far do not have heart problems.
I believe the problem we have with drug side effects results from the fact that our doctors don't always familiarize themselves with the long, wordy information about drugs. When the folder/pamphlet says black on white that people allergic to something should avoid the medication we should. Our doctors should be good enough at least to check out the included info. Most of us complaining about symptoms are women. Perhaps a man wrote the included information.
2
It's a Big Pharma money-making lie that cholesterol causes heart attacks. But it's the truth that statin drugs cause suicidal and homocidal behavior. Look it up. The stories are all over the Net.
3
why big pharma meds, I take 1tsp of Cumin into my Greek yogurt everyday...it's natural and leg cramps on statins run in my family
1
Maybe if people stopped consuming animals and animal products they wouldn't have to worry about high cholesterol and the associated health risks.
Surely prevention would be far better than treating symptons for the majority of those with high cholesterol.
Try diet and exercise first before relying on pills.
Surely prevention would be far better than treating symptons for the majority of those with high cholesterol.
Try diet and exercise first before relying on pills.
3
@De:
Most people improve their blood lipid profiles when they ditch refined carbs and eat more well-raised animal foods.
Most people improve their blood lipid profiles when they ditch refined carbs and eat more well-raised animal foods.
I was prescribed a Statin after an episode of Atrial Fibrillation. I protested to the specialist that my cholesterol was below 5. I then had muscle problems in the left leg and went to a manipulative therapist who gave up treating me. I consulted another specialist who took me off the drug because my LDL was very low. I recovered quickly. Several of my friends also had muscle problems which ceased when they stopped taking that well known brand of statin. In Australia the ABC ran a program disputing the effectiveness of statins and the AMA attacked the program. The medical establishment have vested interests. I quoted previous NYT articles all to no avail.
8
I am allergic to sulfanilamide. The statins are based on something like that. I have tried red yeast rice and as with statins get muscle cramps. My doctor also to
1
Docs are trained to put people on statins. My son's PCP said " statins should be in drinking water." OMG!!!!!!!!!!! I did an nsg. assessment on a man whose cholesterol numbers were perfectly normal. except his HDH was low. His total cholesterol was 125!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he was put on a statin to raise the HDL. Statins may not even do that. He walks 6 miles 5 days a week. Of course that means the total will drop and that is quite low. Blessings to these doctors. I use my naturopathic doc who is an internist who went nutrition and supplements. Big pharm is out for the bucks and cinvince the docs of the need for them.
5
It's a tricky issue. But I do suspect that people are imagining or misattributing this side effect and I would not like to see insurance rates going up for everybody because of that/
1
You describe exactly the opposite of what's happening.
The overprescription of statin drugs, aside from wrecking many lives, also costs us all huge amounts of money. It may get worse with the new drugs--still on patent.
Imagine the costs tied to neuromuscular diseases such as I got in 6 months.
Also the $30 billion spent on giving statins to healthy people (not yet patients, but about 10% of them about to be).
The overprescription of statin drugs, aside from wrecking many lives, also costs us all huge amounts of money. It may get worse with the new drugs--still on patent.
Imagine the costs tied to neuromuscular diseases such as I got in 6 months.
Also the $30 billion spent on giving statins to healthy people (not yet patients, but about 10% of them about to be).
3
I have rarely seen so much hyperbole based on so few fact as in the comments on this article.
2
Muscle aches??? How about cramping so severe that one is screaming in pain? It started in my feet..generally in the middle of the night. I upped my intake of magnesium and potassium thinking that was the issue. When it didn't help I had my levels tested....both were well within the range of normal. I added drinking tonic water with quinine in place of regular water. Still had cramps. Then, one afternoon, as I was sitting in my recliner, I had the onset of cramps that started in my feet and traveled all the way up my legs. I had to walk for hours and take medication for cramps. That night I skipped my Mevacor. That was last February. I have not take Mevacor since. And, wow, no more cramps!! It took about 2 weeks for them to stop completely. Now, I am a medical professional with almost 40 years experience. I have worked in clinical trials. I understand that my findings are not "scientific" however, facts are facts. No Mevacor, no cramps.
11
I'm not sure where's the quandary. If statins work for 75% of us and are low cost, no need to move us to untried, expensive alternatives. For the 25% for who statins don't work, give them the new drugs.
2
The false premise here is that this is an either/or issue (pill #1 vs pill #2). We always want a magic bullet, when over and over (cortisone injections, addictive pain meds, elective orthopedic surgeries). we find that what was touted to be one, isn't. An overly narrow pharmaceutical/surgical approach for addressing all health issues simply is not health "care", from a national or personal self-responsiblity standpoint and it goes without saying, I would hope, that a $14,000-a-year pill for 25% of those with high cholesterol is not Affordable Health Care.
10
right on.
1
Dr Jane Armitage, part of Sir Professor Rory Collins' NDPH, infamous among statin victims and statin skeptics (in part for their massive funding from Big Pharma, and in part for trying to get retracted a 2013 article in the BMJ showing adverse affects from statins in the 10% range) is one of your sources.
Come on NY Times: follow the money here!
Just search the web for the amounts of money Big Pharma has given to what we readers might otherwise naively think were neutral sources.
Rory Collins, who runs the NDPH, has even been known to call cardiologists in the US who've talked about the adverse effects of statins: Oh no, you don't want to do that! People will stop taking their statin drugs!
We know this cast of characters....
This whole story has the putrid stink of money behind it. All sophisticated statin victims have been waiting for what this article describes:
1. Hold tight to the simplistic and unscientific LDL-C theory
2. Finally begin to acknowledge the massive number of adverse affects to statins.
3. Push the new on-patent "blockbusters" as described in this articles.
Here we go. This is the Sprout Pharma story writ large. Except you don't seem to want to write it.
Come on NY Times: follow the money here!
Just search the web for the amounts of money Big Pharma has given to what we readers might otherwise naively think were neutral sources.
Rory Collins, who runs the NDPH, has even been known to call cardiologists in the US who've talked about the adverse effects of statins: Oh no, you don't want to do that! People will stop taking their statin drugs!
We know this cast of characters....
This whole story has the putrid stink of money behind it. All sophisticated statin victims have been waiting for what this article describes:
1. Hold tight to the simplistic and unscientific LDL-C theory
2. Finally begin to acknowledge the massive number of adverse affects to statins.
3. Push the new on-patent "blockbusters" as described in this articles.
Here we go. This is the Sprout Pharma story writ large. Except you don't seem to want to write it.
16
I'd be a cripple in a wheelchair today if I hadn't stopped taking statins. My doctor called my excruciating leg pain "a little muscle problem" and said I needed to stay on them. But, without her approval, I went off all statins.
Within two weeks, one leg much less pain, within two months I was doing much better. I was sleeping 10+ hours a night. Now, I'm sleeping a lot less and am finally able to lose some weight and exercise 4x / week - things I was simply unable to do before, because of my previous muscle pains.
Why did I stop taking them? One day, I was considering if I could tolerate the pain to walk to the bathroom......... decided I'd rather have another stroke than to live like that any longer. Today, I have my life back, and I am thankful. Doctors really need to start listening to their patients....
Within two weeks, one leg much less pain, within two months I was doing much better. I was sleeping 10+ hours a night. Now, I'm sleeping a lot less and am finally able to lose some weight and exercise 4x / week - things I was simply unable to do before, because of my previous muscle pains.
Why did I stop taking them? One day, I was considering if I could tolerate the pain to walk to the bathroom......... decided I'd rather have another stroke than to live like that any longer. Today, I have my life back, and I am thankful. Doctors really need to start listening to their patients....
18
No, we listen to drug reps who bribe us with dinners,trips and other perks. Patients are just lower entities in the food chain.
3
I have switched to a vegetarian diet but continue eating
a small steak about once a week.
Vegetarians need to add Vitamin B12 to their diet and a good choice
Is Solgars Methylcobalamin as a sublingual pill.
A diet of Kinoa with whole brown rice tofu and seiten is very satisfying
filling and wholesome. Additonal variations are possible to this diet.
I make it a point to walk and exercise as often as possible.
It is part of my daily routine.
My cholesterol level dropped by 30 percent just by following the steps above.
I take a statin on the days I consume a steak to keep total cholesterol down.
a small steak about once a week.
Vegetarians need to add Vitamin B12 to their diet and a good choice
Is Solgars Methylcobalamin as a sublingual pill.
A diet of Kinoa with whole brown rice tofu and seiten is very satisfying
filling and wholesome. Additonal variations are possible to this diet.
I make it a point to walk and exercise as often as possible.
It is part of my daily routine.
My cholesterol level dropped by 30 percent just by following the steps above.
I take a statin on the days I consume a steak to keep total cholesterol down.
1
why bother?
2
Hi Leila
I bother to take an occasional statin because if I develop a slight pressure in the chest the statin helps relieve symptoms.
It may b
I bother to take an occasional statin because if I develop a slight pressure in the chest the statin helps relieve symptoms.
It may b
For those who can find another way: Start exercising and eat right to avoid becoming enslaved to this nightmare.
6
The muscle pain I experienced with a Statin was not something I imagined. I could hardly get out of bed for days. Even my chiropractor couldn't understand why I had such excruciating pain. When I quit taking the Statin, it took weeks to get my body back to normal. I would rather be dead than suffer the debilitation that I experienced with a Statin.
13
Please follow up with a thorough story that explains to me why the two new drugs are so outrageously expensive.
7
Go ahead and be dismissive of this....but gluten free is what is bringing down my husband's cholesterol. He was already in shape, active, non-smoker, good weight, etc.
4
I agree with you, grains cause more issues along with sugar.
1
I've been waiting for a comment like this one to show up. I'm surprised it's taken this long.
I've had several types of statins prescribed for me over the past several years and I had to cease taking each one due to muscle issues. Fearing I was unique I did a search online and found countless testimonies of the same problem with many of them relating effects more serious than simple discomfort. However articles like this one consistently indicate that there is no real indication of this as a common side effect from clinical trials. Something is terribly amiss if the medical community is steadfastly defending and even promoting the use of pharmaceuticals with such a torrent of anecdotal reports of problems from patients.
I am loathe to doubt my own doctor's best intentions but I do know that he like all other physicians are constantly burdened by insurance companies and health partnerships to 'meet the goals' and focus on the 'numbers' with little or no regard to individual cases.
I am loathe to doubt my own doctor's best intentions but I do know that he like all other physicians are constantly burdened by insurance companies and health partnerships to 'meet the goals' and focus on the 'numbers' with little or no regard to individual cases.
11
Statins can come as a derivative of magnesium or calcium.
Personally I tolerate the Torid Magnesium derivative better.
My dosage is low 20 Mg that works for me once or twice a week.
I cannot tolerate statins on a regular basis they make me weak cause me
to feel nauseas at times and give me muscle and joint pain.
As a 68 year old male I fear falling down while going to the bathroom at night.
I therefore decided that statins were actually dangerous for me.
Personally I tolerate the Torid Magnesium derivative better.
My dosage is low 20 Mg that works for me once or twice a week.
I cannot tolerate statins on a regular basis they make me weak cause me
to feel nauseas at times and give me muscle and joint pain.
As a 68 year old male I fear falling down while going to the bathroom at night.
I therefore decided that statins were actually dangerous for me.
5
falling for us older folks is quite dangerous. read Dr sinatra. Oh and Dr mercola
2
Most people on statins are overweight. I do not, for the life of me, understand why insurance companies will cover the cost of statins but will not cover the cost of medications used to control appetite or aid in weight loss. Most people who lose weight experience lower cholesterol, a reduction in blood pressure, and an improvement in overall respiratory health. Yes, there are risks with medications used in weight loss but when weighed against the side effects of statins, weight loss medications have fewer side effects. If you are on statins, chances are you will remain on them forever. If you are on weight loss medications, you remain on these a short time until weight is lost. My MD always tells me even a 10% reduction in weight results in lowering blood pressure and cholesterol.
4
Many lose weight. Almost no one sustains it.
As a physician, I'm shocked by Dr. Libby's statement that as a physician he believes the patient is always right. I can only hope that he actually practices as a scientist. If not, he'd be misdiagnosing and mistreating patients right and left. I wonder if a drug addict came to him and said that the only thing that would prevent him from buying heroin was to have a doctor prescribe opioids for him, he would prescribe them to him based on the patient's belief.
And in the case of Kathryn Peterson, I'm curious how it was decided difficulty climbing stairs in a 72 y.o. with M.S. was due to statins.
And in the case of Kathryn Peterson, I'm curious how it was decided difficulty climbing stairs in a 72 y.o. with M.S. was due to statins.
1
Maybe the MS wasn't that progressed. Maybe he walked up and down stair well even with MS before the statins. MD's are trained to put statins as a top drug, there are many articles that disagree. Like low fat does nothing, it is the kind of fats we inject. I read many and fabulous articles. many are from MD's.
Because I can walk up the stairs when I am not taking statins. When I take statins I gradually loose that ability. When I stop, within 2 weeks I can do it again. I tried this with statins groups one after the other. Always the same result. It is as clear as water coming out of a faucet when you turn it on.
2
Statins lowered my cholesterol overall very significantly. Many studies have shown a consistent difference of 25% in fatal heart attacks between those who take statins and control groups of those who do not. That 25% does not vary with how high or low cholesterol measurements happen to be. For 75% of patients, statins do not seem to help reduce heart attacks even thought they reduce cholesterol. What excites clinicians is that statins do save lives and enables them to save some noticeable proportion of their patients, but they do not know who. Physicians examine lab results from blood tests to determine the result of therapies both good and bad based upon statistical studies, studies of groups of people not individuals, the result is that they tend not of address how the body actually looks and feels for individuals.
Statins combined with beta blockers caused my muscles to atrophy and prevented them from retaining the benefits from exercise no matter how much I was able to do. Losing weight at dietaries above negative 1000 kilocalories resulted in starvation reactions. My physique resembled that of a man in his late sixties when I was only fifty. I really end up thinking that the drugs work by making the body react inefficiently rather than by preventing some disease process from proceeding.
Statins combined with beta blockers caused my muscles to atrophy and prevented them from retaining the benefits from exercise no matter how much I was able to do. Losing weight at dietaries above negative 1000 kilocalories resulted in starvation reactions. My physique resembled that of a man in his late sixties when I was only fifty. I really end up thinking that the drugs work by making the body react inefficiently rather than by preventing some disease process from proceeding.
7
"Should the people who need to lower their cholesterol, but say they cannot tolerate statins, be prescribed new drugs that cost more than $14,000 a year, potentially adding billions of dollars to the nation’s medical bill?" As someone who is a prescriber, I answer that for the vast majority of people, the answer is "No". Especially when these drugs are so new and are actually only approved for a small subset of people with high cholesterol. In the case of Ms. Peterson, who has high risk, a more nuanced approach is reasonable. After weighing all the factors and discussing it with her, I might prescribe one of the two new drugs. It depends on a lot of factors and information that we readers don't have access to.
3
Go naturopatic.
1
After being on Simvastatin for 8 years, I suggested to my doctor to take me off the med so I could re-baseline. Because I had borderline numbers, he agreed.
After a year's hiatus, I decided to go back on the statin. But a new protocol had come about: the recommendation is bedtime use. Apparently, as I understood it (layman's explanation), the lipids are more easily attacked and more fluid during nighttime hours, enhancing the drug's effectiveness.
But I quickly began to suffer insomnia, and so I've stopped altogether. I'll wait until my next checkup to re-evaluate.
After a year's hiatus, I decided to go back on the statin. But a new protocol had come about: the recommendation is bedtime use. Apparently, as I understood it (layman's explanation), the lipids are more easily attacked and more fluid during nighttime hours, enhancing the drug's effectiveness.
But I quickly began to suffer insomnia, and so I've stopped altogether. I'll wait until my next checkup to re-evaluate.
The pharmacist at Kaiser directed my doctor to prescribe Lipitor. Almost immediately I developed intense pain in both shoulders. Now, three years later I experience it every time I move my arms, even though I only took the medicine for two weeks.
I believe all statins should be outlawed and the pharmaceutical companies should be fined billions of dollars.
I believe all statins should be outlawed and the pharmaceutical companies should be fined billions of dollars.
9
I think what Dr. Solomon said is very true. I had muscle pain and weakness issues with statins and continue to at a much lower dose of only 10mg instead of 20mg and Lipitor instead of the generics. My condition was worse with the generics and slightly better with the 10mg dose I take now, especially if I take it in the morning. This has reduced the frequency but not intensity of muscle problems. I think sometimes clinical significance, as evidenced by symptoms, outweighs statistical significant in some of these clinical trials.
8
the medical profession and the pharmaceutical companies will never tell you that there is a natural substance that will regulate cholesterol levels in as little as one month. this substance is called " citrus bergamot " costs about $25.00 for a month supply. it has only been available in this country less than a year. don't believe this ? , well , search it out !
4
I tried statins twice and both times they made me a raging lunatic. Doctor tells me "anecdotal". Don't think so. Not when I am behind another car and carry on a conversation in my head: "Just smash into him! Why? Just do it."
Stopped the drugs, stopped the crazies.
Stopped the drugs, stopped the crazies.
8
What researchers and pharma doesn't tell you is that statins and other cholesterol treating drugs don't address the root issue of CVD. They don't address what is causing the damage to the arteries that cholesterol has to fix.
As a whole, statins are ineffective and only help less than 4 % of people that have already had an event. But hey, it makes people a lot of money.
As a whole, statins are ineffective and only help less than 4 % of people that have already had an event. But hey, it makes people a lot of money.
13
Instead of paying a drug company up to $14K/year for each Medicare patient who takes this supposed wonder drug, why not deposit $200/month into the saving accounts for those at-risk and on Medicare who can provide some sort of verification that they follow a mostly plant-based diet?
5
Maybe because human beings are omnivores who are built to consume meat-based proteins.
In fairness you might be alluding to the Mediterranean diet, in which case I shouldn't have opened my mouth and am in agreement with you.
In fairness you might be alluding to the Mediterranean diet, in which case I shouldn't have opened my mouth and am in agreement with you.
2
grains are the worst foods for us.
1
It's hard to read this and not squirm.
The dismissal of patients' reports of excruciating muscle pain that makes exercise and a full night's sleep impossible as 'purely psychological' is disrespectful, bordering on the abusive. So many statin users (especially female statin users over 50) experienced these side effects despite not having been told that muscle pain and weakness WERE possible (and common) side effects. But we're all hysterical and/or malingering, right?
--Been there, done that. When I was prescribed statins in my mid-50s and experienced excruciating foot pain, I was bullied, told that I would get used to the 'discomfort,' told that the problem had nothing to do with statins, and what I needed was ($350) orthotics, etc. I then saw a psychiatrist (out of network) who told me that he now had many, many (over 50, female) patients who had been bullied the way I had.....including people who now could not walk without a cane, or walk at all. But the side effects are not real, or are minor, right?
And then there is the elevated risk of developing diabetes, something that (surprise!) occurs much more in (non-overweight, non-junk-food-consuming, exercise-responsible) ...women over 50. Diabetes is a profound compromiser of health, and increaser of risk, including coronary risk. Why would someone with moderately high cholesterol (remember that cholesterol rises with age) and no history of coronary events trade up to the diabetes risks?
The dismissal of patients' reports of excruciating muscle pain that makes exercise and a full night's sleep impossible as 'purely psychological' is disrespectful, bordering on the abusive. So many statin users (especially female statin users over 50) experienced these side effects despite not having been told that muscle pain and weakness WERE possible (and common) side effects. But we're all hysterical and/or malingering, right?
--Been there, done that. When I was prescribed statins in my mid-50s and experienced excruciating foot pain, I was bullied, told that I would get used to the 'discomfort,' told that the problem had nothing to do with statins, and what I needed was ($350) orthotics, etc. I then saw a psychiatrist (out of network) who told me that he now had many, many (over 50, female) patients who had been bullied the way I had.....including people who now could not walk without a cane, or walk at all. But the side effects are not real, or are minor, right?
And then there is the elevated risk of developing diabetes, something that (surprise!) occurs much more in (non-overweight, non-junk-food-consuming, exercise-responsible) ...women over 50. Diabetes is a profound compromiser of health, and increaser of risk, including coronary risk. Why would someone with moderately high cholesterol (remember that cholesterol rises with age) and no history of coronary events trade up to the diabetes risks?
17
When my daughter (age 22) was prescribed medicine for migraines, it was $200 for 30 pills. The following month I ordered it from a Canadian pharmacy online, via Seattle. It was $100 less.
A friend with leukemia, who'd been on disability for years before the cancer, was given Gleevec courtesy of the Broward County (FL) Cancer Society. It cost $3,000.00 per month. Their philanthropy kept him alive for 7 more years, when he was lucky to die in his sleep, tho only age 58. Who can afford $3,000 per month, BTW?
A friend with leukemia, who'd been on disability for years before the cancer, was given Gleevec courtesy of the Broward County (FL) Cancer Society. It cost $3,000.00 per month. Their philanthropy kept him alive for 7 more years, when he was lucky to die in his sleep, tho only age 58. Who can afford $3,000 per month, BTW?
3
not me.
1
People need to stop their denial and look at the very real, and costly, dangers of consuming animal fats and protein. And no, “All things in moderation” does not a healthy heart make.
The Myth of High-Protein Diets
By DEAN ORNISH MARCH 23, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/opinion/the-myth-of-high-protein-diets...
"Low-carb, high-animal-protein diets promote heart disease via mechanisms other than just their effects on cholesterol levels. Arterial blockages may be caused by animal-protein-induced elevations in free fatty acids and insulin levels and decreased production of endothelial progenitor cells (which help keep arteries clean). Egg yolks and red meat appear to significantly increase the risk of coronary heart disease and cancer due to increased production of trimethylamine N-oxide, or TMAO, a metabolite of meat and egg yolks linked to the clogging of arteries. (Egg whites have neither cholesterol nor TMAO.)
Animal protein increases IGF-1, an insulin-like growth hormone, and chronic inflammation, an underlying factor in many chronic diseases. Also, red meat is high in Neu5Gc, a tumor-forming sugar that is linked to chronic inflammation and an increased risk of cancer. A plant-based diet may prolong life by blocking the mTOR protein, which is linked to aging. "
The Myth of High-Protein Diets
By DEAN ORNISH MARCH 23, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/opinion/the-myth-of-high-protein-diets...
"Low-carb, high-animal-protein diets promote heart disease via mechanisms other than just their effects on cholesterol levels. Arterial blockages may be caused by animal-protein-induced elevations in free fatty acids and insulin levels and decreased production of endothelial progenitor cells (which help keep arteries clean). Egg yolks and red meat appear to significantly increase the risk of coronary heart disease and cancer due to increased production of trimethylamine N-oxide, or TMAO, a metabolite of meat and egg yolks linked to the clogging of arteries. (Egg whites have neither cholesterol nor TMAO.)
Animal protein increases IGF-1, an insulin-like growth hormone, and chronic inflammation, an underlying factor in many chronic diseases. Also, red meat is high in Neu5Gc, a tumor-forming sugar that is linked to chronic inflammation and an increased risk of cancer. A plant-based diet may prolong life by blocking the mTOR protein, which is linked to aging. "
8
@Pacifica:
Animal foods have never been demonstrated to "clog arteries." Our arteries are not simple pipes that directly receive bits of food. Both IGF-1 and the mTOR protein are crucial parts of _muscle-building_ pathways in the body, and lots of vegan foods also raise TMAO levels in the blood. Ornish is stuck in the 1970s with his science.
Animal foods have never been demonstrated to "clog arteries." Our arteries are not simple pipes that directly receive bits of food. Both IGF-1 and the mTOR protein are crucial parts of _muscle-building_ pathways in the body, and lots of vegan foods also raise TMAO levels in the blood. Ornish is stuck in the 1970s with his science.
3
This is old science. not true. Animal fat is OK if it is from a grass fed animal. Same with butter just don't eat the whole stick!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stay away from vegetable oil, use olve oil, coconut oil, limit grains, sugar, no processed foods, eat local. I eat eggs every day, cereals are way worse. Eggs got a bad rap for years, all nonsense now. yes, chronic inflammation is bad, have a CRP blood test done to rate your inflammation. Eat lots of veggies, some fruits, less dairy, raw when you can. nuts, beans.
1
am i glad i own drug company stock ... remember 16 years before generic can be introduced
3
"...LDL Cholesterol levels below 70, a goal many doctors strive for". I was a bit staggered at that figure. A health insurance company that my wife and I used required an annual health check. In this, the LDL was required to be no greater than 160.
Could the difference between the "recommended" figure of 70 compared with the 160 figure be explained by the desire of the medical fraternity to prescribe statins at the earliest opportunity?
I have read elsewhere that the link between high cholesterol and heart disease is well established above the higher figure not at the lowest end. A long term study of those who had statins but whose cholesterol was towards the lower (70) end showed no difference in the causes of death compared with those with higher around 150(?) figures.
I think I shall stay off statins until or if I can't keep my LDL below 160 by natural means: exercise, decent diet, maybe with the help of plant sterols via spreads or tablets.
Could the difference between the "recommended" figure of 70 compared with the 160 figure be explained by the desire of the medical fraternity to prescribe statins at the earliest opportunity?
I have read elsewhere that the link between high cholesterol and heart disease is well established above the higher figure not at the lowest end. A long term study of those who had statins but whose cholesterol was towards the lower (70) end showed no difference in the causes of death compared with those with higher around 150(?) figures.
I think I shall stay off statins until or if I can't keep my LDL below 160 by natural means: exercise, decent diet, maybe with the help of plant sterols via spreads or tablets.
4
70 is for people who are at highest risk: Diabetics with known atherosclerosis, people who have had a heart attack, etc. And many clinicians have abandoned strict numerical goals completely. The latest cholesterol guidelines do NOT suggest numerical goals.
I experienced bone pain after taking every level of statin, from the most powerful (Lipitor) to the least. Red yeast rice was no better, so I went off all statin-type meds.
Then I read, perhaps here, about a medical practice that advocated titrating statins from very small levels to higher ones that their patients could handle without symptoms.
With my (curious) physician's approval, I went step by step from 5mg to 20mg of Atorvastatin over a period of about six months, and settled at that dose about a year ago, with no painful side effects since.
If you think it's worth a try, talk to your physician. It worked for me.
Then I read, perhaps here, about a medical practice that advocated titrating statins from very small levels to higher ones that their patients could handle without symptoms.
With my (curious) physician's approval, I went step by step from 5mg to 20mg of Atorvastatin over a period of about six months, and settled at that dose about a year ago, with no painful side effects since.
If you think it's worth a try, talk to your physician. It worked for me.
4
I'm astonished that this generally excellent article did not discuss one of the most common side effects of statins: gastritis. For ulcer sufferers, statins can be a slow-acting flame-thrower, creating intense discomfort for days.
I've had several heart attacks but refuse to take statins; my gastritis became so intense that I could no longer exercise or live a life with reasonable quality. Unfortunately, too many doctors push these powerful drugs on every patient who walks through their doors, without regard for the effects on anything other than a few dubious blood tests. It's mindless medicine.
I've had several heart attacks but refuse to take statins; my gastritis became so intense that I could no longer exercise or live a life with reasonable quality. Unfortunately, too many doctors push these powerful drugs on every patient who walks through their doors, without regard for the effects on anything other than a few dubious blood tests. It's mindless medicine.
6
"Praluent...which costs $14,600 a year, and Repatha...at $14,100 a year."
What a REMARKABLE coincidence that both drugs, independently developed by different firms, should cost within about 3% of each other annually!
Corporate collusion? What collusion? Nothing to see here - move along.
What a REMARKABLE coincidence that both drugs, independently developed by different firms, should cost within about 3% of each other annually!
Corporate collusion? What collusion? Nothing to see here - move along.
12
Go look up just about any set of competing products. Televisions, cars, what have you. Pick two comparable items from competitors. They'll be priced the same way.
How is it that "clinical trials" have not found that statins can cause leg cramps in a significant population of users? Dr. Solomon cites 25% of people on statins complaining of side effects. I experienced Outrageously severe leg cramps at night and problems with my feet. When the problems with my feet first began, I was given the "you are getting old" answer and put on massive doses of Ibuprofen. No one ever suggested that the problems that I put up with for three or more years could be from statins. On the day after I used the last Ibuprofen in the pill bottle, I took myself off the statin. After a week I noticed a big change for the better, but it took several months for the leg cramps to cease altogether and my feet have gradually repaired. My primary physician supports my decision. The question of cholesterol remains open. There is something fishy about the clinical trials.
6
I assume that as Dr. Solomon is so certain that he has studies and not just his own beliefs to back up what he says. If so perhaps he would be good enough to cite these studies.
The same thing happened to my wife. Soemthing is fishy about statins and the resulting research.
2
My experience matches that of Dr. Solomon precisely. Although I am 90, have had one stroke and several TIAs, and suffer high LDL, my only relief came through abandoning statins.
6
Here's SOME of the money that Dr Stephen L Kopecky received from...holy smokes, Regeneron!!!
I'm not a reporter, so all I did was check his 2014 Dollars for Docs at Pro Publica. Why doesn't the NY Times check out the real dollars?
I'm not saying anything about Dr K in particular. Most of us know that our healthcare system is massively corrupted by Big Pharma money. It's totally possible that Dr K is uninfluenced by Regeneron, for example, isn't it?
It's nice and all that a statin-prescriber at least believes that statins cause problems. And for Regneron, it's time to acknowledge this fact: we have a very expensive new drug to take the place of this old one.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 01/10/2014 $2,211.75
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 01/10/2014 $43,463.70
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 06/26/2014 $540.00
This is a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel-group, multi-national, multi-center study of alirocumab REGN727 SAR236553 in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and moderate, high, or very high CV risk, who are intolerant to statins.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 07/11/2014 $20,916.00 No
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 10/10/2014 $3,654.00 No
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 12/18/2014 $762.16 No
I'm not a reporter, so all I did was check his 2014 Dollars for Docs at Pro Publica. Why doesn't the NY Times check out the real dollars?
I'm not saying anything about Dr K in particular. Most of us know that our healthcare system is massively corrupted by Big Pharma money. It's totally possible that Dr K is uninfluenced by Regeneron, for example, isn't it?
It's nice and all that a statin-prescriber at least believes that statins cause problems. And for Regneron, it's time to acknowledge this fact: we have a very expensive new drug to take the place of this old one.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 01/10/2014 $2,211.75
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 01/10/2014 $43,463.70
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 06/26/2014 $540.00
This is a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel-group, multi-national, multi-center study of alirocumab REGN727 SAR236553 in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and moderate, high, or very high CV risk, who are intolerant to statins.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 07/11/2014 $20,916.00 No
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 10/10/2014 $3,654.00 No
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 12/18/2014 $762.16 No
7
How much do these new drugs cost in Great Britain? How much in Canada?
4
Simple solution. Medicare should negotiate drug costs with Big Pharma. Hard. As in every other civilized country in the world.
7
Two points:
There are effective alternatives to reducing cardiovascular risk besides taking expensive or side effect prone medications. Populations that eschew meat live an average of 10 years longer than the rest of us, an effect far, far greater than the benefit of any drug.
Drug companies routinely cover up side effects of medications.
Look no further than antidepressants which have myriad intolerable side effects. But trying to do research these side effects, one runs into endless obfuscation by the drug companies.
There are effective alternatives to reducing cardiovascular risk besides taking expensive or side effect prone medications. Populations that eschew meat live an average of 10 years longer than the rest of us, an effect far, far greater than the benefit of any drug.
Drug companies routinely cover up side effects of medications.
Look no further than antidepressants which have myriad intolerable side effects. But trying to do research these side effects, one runs into endless obfuscation by the drug companies.
5
There is no evidence that populations that eschew meat live on average of 10 years longer than the rest of us. There is evidence that drastically reducing consumption of reifned sugar and grains (pasta, cereal, bread) and moderate exercise is the best way of avoiding high cholesterol, obesity, Type 2 diabetes and a whole host of ailments. Eat a free-range chicken, or eggs from a free-range chicken, will not shorten your lifespan. Guaranteed.
4
Ay,
If you look at any drug, you will see a myriad of "intolerable side effects" including aspirin and Tylenol, the use of which are by the way, unlike the antidepressants, are associated with thousands of deaths each year. If you're so angry about side-effects, perhaps you should take aim at aspirin and Tylenol before taking it at the antidepressants.
If you look at any drug, you will see a myriad of "intolerable side effects" including aspirin and Tylenol, the use of which are by the way, unlike the antidepressants, are associated with thousands of deaths each year. If you're so angry about side-effects, perhaps you should take aim at aspirin and Tylenol before taking it at the antidepressants.
My doctor prescribed statins for me, a very low dose. I had no idea there were any incapacitating side effects. Within 2 days, I had excrutiating muscle cramps and muscle weakness, which got worse day by day. I switched brands to no avail. Because I take a professional ballet class, 4/5 times/week, I am in great shape and strong; however, with the statins I was not able to get through the barre, I was so exhausted. My body simply couldn't. It was then that I turned to the internet and discovered I'm just one of many people to have these problems. I have stopped taking
statins.
statins.
11
AS A PHYSICIAN, I have found a very, very simple way to determine if the side effects are due to a statin. Nearly all statins are taken at bedtime. If symptoms are worse at night and the morning, better in the afternoon, and best in the early evening as the statin wears off, you have your answer. Nearly every one of my patients on statins is having side effects. The recent VA study was alarming: in a 10 year study, 87% developed diabetes, obesity increased markedly, and diabetic complications increased. As hormones are made from cholesterol, taking statins always lowers hormones, e.g. testosterone down 20% in my male patients. As hormones are anabolic, statins are catabolic i.e. cause every organ and tissue in your body to shrivel up. Is this what patients want?
18
Would reference that study? Thanks
2
Will a report about this study be published?
Before making a decision about taking statins please read the following article very carefully:
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2008-01-16/do-cholesterol-drugs-do-a...
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2008-01-16/do-cholesterol-drugs-do-a...
1
which costs $14,600 a year, and Repatha, made by Amgen and approved Thursday, at $14,100 a year.
----------------------
What a rip-off. And shame on the FDA for its gargantuan new-drug approval process. When I worked at HP with Big Pharma customers in NJ, the #1 goal was to reduce the horrendous paper-bound FDA requirements, and the 2-ft. tall stacks of multi-year documentation demanded by the bureaucrats for new drug applications (NDAs). Just switching from paper to electronic formats was like Operation Overlord for the hidebound FDA bureaucrats.
----------------------
What a rip-off. And shame on the FDA for its gargantuan new-drug approval process. When I worked at HP with Big Pharma customers in NJ, the #1 goal was to reduce the horrendous paper-bound FDA requirements, and the 2-ft. tall stacks of multi-year documentation demanded by the bureaucrats for new drug applications (NDAs). Just switching from paper to electronic formats was like Operation Overlord for the hidebound FDA bureaucrats.
2
I've been on Simvastatin for over 10 years and suffered from daily severe leg cramps. I started drinking small quantities of Welsh's red grape juice with 4% potassium and the leg cramps disappeared immediately. I recommended it to a friend and he had the same experience as did I.
1
I have now refused to try any more Statins because all of them give me muscle pain that is real and debilitating! I also have long wondered if the way we measure the LDL Cholesterol is accurate. Are we really able to do more than numbers; do we need a test to measure whether the particles of oxidized LDL is more important i.e. type of density, or is this too expensive to consider? Can't help wonder if modern day medicine is just lazy and driven by money and Big Pharma.
5
Fortunately, such tests are indeed available and are even affordable. I recently did both a VAP test, which includes density, and an OXLDL (oxidized LDL). I purchased both tests online from Life Extension and each was roughly $60 (sale price). My insurance doesn't cover these, but I was happy to have the additional information.
1
Years ago I was put on Lipitor. I was a healthy male with a bad family history of heart disease, and a somewhat elevated LDL. After a few months my quads became so weak that it was difficult to walk down stairs. I had received no warning about this and discovered myself that this could be related to the statin. I stopped the Lipitor and the problem went away.
A while later, a new doctor talked me in to trying a different statin, Mevacor. After a few weeks I noticed that at night, stop and go red and green lights were now showing bright extended halos, so that the red or green seemed to extend several yards around the light. It was too weird for words. I hit the web and found that sometimes this happens with a statin. I stopped the statin and the problem went away.
Having experienced two profound side effects associated with statins, I decided to take an aspirin every day and get on with my life. My guess is that someday we will look back on this era as the statin era, and statins will be seen as a fad, no different from the fad that took my tonsils in the 50's.
My second guess is that the new drugs will someday only be given to people with extremely high LDL and known heart disease.
A while later, a new doctor talked me in to trying a different statin, Mevacor. After a few weeks I noticed that at night, stop and go red and green lights were now showing bright extended halos, so that the red or green seemed to extend several yards around the light. It was too weird for words. I hit the web and found that sometimes this happens with a statin. I stopped the statin and the problem went away.
Having experienced two profound side effects associated with statins, I decided to take an aspirin every day and get on with my life. My guess is that someday we will look back on this era as the statin era, and statins will be seen as a fad, no different from the fad that took my tonsils in the 50's.
My second guess is that the new drugs will someday only be given to people with extremely high LDL and known heart disease.
10
Don't you NYT people even read your own authors? I refer to Nina Teicholz' Big Fat Surprise debunking the cholesterol fraud. I'm sure at some level cholesterol is bad, just like one can die from water intoxication if you drink too much of it, or drown in it. As for me, I was on statins for years and my brain began to rot. Could not even remember an area code or perform addition and Lovistatin actually caused immediate limb pain. Same for my brother, 11 years my junior. I read BFS just in time. My familial clan has high cholesterol readings and we do not suffer except when we were put on statins.
4
How about: "Old Alternatives to Statins" like exercise, better diet and quitting smoking? Sorry, medical miracles only need apply.
3
Sorry but doctors don't get paid for encouraging patients to exercise, eat better diets, or quit smoking. They do get paid for prescribing medications and it is far easier and takes much less time.
1
Surprisingly, this article doesn't discuss WHY people complain of debilitating muscle pain when taking statins. Statins block production of an enzyme used in the manufacture of LDL. That enzyme also is involved in manufacturing co-enzyme Q10.
This co-enzyme is involved in all mitochondrial cell function. When depleted, it yields muscle soreness. If levels drop low enough, it can cause muscle breakdown, called rhabdomyolysis, which is life threatening.
Yet despite this, I could only find one or two very small studies investigating the efficacy of taking supplemental CoQ10 when taking statins, both of which found positive results. This surely is an important medical question to investigate. There have also been a few very small studies showing that people with certain genetic markers are precisely those who also do poorly on statins.
The only reasons I can see for the refusal to launch large clinical trials investigating this question is (a) fear of lawsuits from people who will claim their doctors were negligent in not prescribing supplemental CoQ10, and/or (b) the frank hatred and competitiveness the pharmaceutical industry feels toward the nutriceutical industry.
Incidentally, red yeast rice and bergamot lower LDL via the exact same mechanism as statins, so there is no reason to believe they are safer. In fact, the dosage of the LDL lowering component can vary substantially in these substances compared to statins.
This co-enzyme is involved in all mitochondrial cell function. When depleted, it yields muscle soreness. If levels drop low enough, it can cause muscle breakdown, called rhabdomyolysis, which is life threatening.
Yet despite this, I could only find one or two very small studies investigating the efficacy of taking supplemental CoQ10 when taking statins, both of which found positive results. This surely is an important medical question to investigate. There have also been a few very small studies showing that people with certain genetic markers are precisely those who also do poorly on statins.
The only reasons I can see for the refusal to launch large clinical trials investigating this question is (a) fear of lawsuits from people who will claim their doctors were negligent in not prescribing supplemental CoQ10, and/or (b) the frank hatred and competitiveness the pharmaceutical industry feels toward the nutriceutical industry.
Incidentally, red yeast rice and bergamot lower LDL via the exact same mechanism as statins, so there is no reason to believe they are safer. In fact, the dosage of the LDL lowering component can vary substantially in these substances compared to statins.
3
Notice what's missing here? The profit gouging of the pharmaceutical industry which makes billions in profits every year. Then gets the taxpayers to fund research and development of new drugs, and sets obscene profit margins on drugs while lobbying massively against any efforts to rein them in. If our legislators had an ounce of courage , they would force the drug companies to stop this theft or set s windfall tax on their profits.
4
Lol. Are you serious? The pharmaceutical companies give our politicians millions and millions of dollars and the politicians turn right around and give them a ton of money. The system is corrupt and that is why I love Sanders and Trump. Both of them are talking about the corrupt American political system.
1
Read The Times editorial today recommending that states fund more research so that researchers at state universities can do research to develop these drugs, sell the rights to them to big Pharma for large amounts of money which then gouge taxpayers a second time when they are the patients.
When offered a statin to control my genetically-linked high cholesterol, I chose to alter my diet and lifestyle instead. With my doctor's support and encouragement, I was able to perfect my levels in 90 days on a regimen of plant-based foods and natural supplements. Giving up dairy products except for small amounts of 0% fat yogurt and 1% milk as well as all sugar, all meat and other animal products, getting plenty of brisk, country walks and yoga, I feel great and at 68 years old am drug free and looking forward to life's next adventures..
6
My last physician & my current physician both hammered at me for years to take statins. I'm one of the people whose joints ache & whose head feels like it's full of cement when I take statins. I really, truly tried to accustom myself & finally I said no & insisted my last doctor find an alternative. After months of go-around, he said hesitantly, "Well, we could try Niacin but I thought you wouldn't like the flushing." In this way I learned he'd decided all by himself I wouldn't like the mild flush that occurs with Niacin - for maybe the first week at most - without even asking me, despite my more strenuous complaints about statins. My new physician of not quite a year & I have gone over the same territory & only recently moved past that as the sole subject of my office visits. What a great relief! The last thing I need to hear to inspire my confidence in my doctor is that I'm imagining these side effects. Buried way down in this article is the tidbit that in MANY of these supposed rigorous tests, people who might suffer side-effects are taken out of the mix early. Don't you think that rigging the results should go higher in this story perhaps? Also, I don't have Diabetes & given my family history, I'm convinced that one reason I don't is that I have resisted statins for maybe ten years now. I have no plans to reconsider. And I'm not spending $14K a year on some new scheme to enrich Big Pharma either.
3
This article denies all the widely available data that shows conclusively that statins cause many serious side effects while being quite ineffective at preventing heart disease. Start with The Great Cholesterol Myth by Bowden and Sinatra, Cholesterol Clarity by Jimmy Moore and Eric Westman, Statin Disaster by David Brownstein, etc. The risks of the side effects are not worth it, especially since cholesterol has never been shown to cause heart disease. If one's cholesterol is elevated, the evidence is overwhelming that it can be brought down by diet and exercise. People need to inform themselves.
6
Looks like we are about to have a conundrum. We can continue to take statins or we can break the bank for this new alternative. Despite what the American Congress of Crackpot Cardiologists keeps telling us, statins are poison for many, many people. Their side effects include diabetes and neurological disorders, such ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), not just temporary and transient muscle pain. I have vascular Parkinsonism AND type 2 diabetes because of a long-term overdose of Zocor. And, like many other folks who take this stuff, I have no heart problems - my LDL, HDL and triglycerides are within "normal" ranges. So why did I take this stuff? Because my crackpot doctors told me to. They prescribe it for everyone. We should understand that fetishes like this exist in all walks of life and look at these poisons for what they are. And just say no when the crackpots tell us to take them.
4
Repatha can cost up to $14,000 a year and add billions of dollars to the nation’s health care expenses?
At this point, is it really unreasonable for taxpayers to demand some proof that patients have at least tried a plant-based diet for a specified period of time before forking over that type of money?
Maybe a change in diet would help, and maybe not, but taxpayers control the purse strings, why not at least demand something from people who are asking for money?
Why should we be stuck with a huge medical bill for those who are either just ill-informed, or more likely, just too stubborn to give-up artery-clogging foods?
At this point, is it really unreasonable for taxpayers to demand some proof that patients have at least tried a plant-based diet for a specified period of time before forking over that type of money?
Maybe a change in diet would help, and maybe not, but taxpayers control the purse strings, why not at least demand something from people who are asking for money?
Why should we be stuck with a huge medical bill for those who are either just ill-informed, or more likely, just too stubborn to give-up artery-clogging foods?
4
This isn't the governments's bill, it's our collective debt, private and public.
1
Taxpayers would pay.
Medicare would have to cover the costs for those who are eligible; and many insurance reimbursement plans are pegged to Medicare rates.
Medicare would have to cover the costs for those who are eligible; and many insurance reimbursement plans are pegged to Medicare rates.
4
"The drugs are cheap and effective for most people, and large, rigorous clinical trials have found minimal side effects. But as many as 25 percent of those who try them complain of muscle pain. Others stop taking the drugs because, they say, they cause a hazy memory or sleep problems, among other side effects not documented in studies."
How can "rigorous" studies miss the massive 25% who get muscle pain? Or the apparently unknown number who get memory problems, sleep problems and I'd add, massive fatigue?
Was this a misprint? Perhaps instead of "rigorous" the intended word was "rigged".
Since only 1% of "side effects" are reported by our doctors, and since almost all research is paid for by Big Pharma, and since the raw data of trials is "proprietary" (can any scientist here believe that level of corruption?), then we have no idea of the true degree of damage statins do. And the damage can be horrific and permanent.
Me? I got a severe neuromuscular disease coincident with taking low-dose statin drug for 7 months. I've suffered with this for over 3 years now.
If this has happened to you, we're just starting a Statin Victim website at http://statinvictims.weebly.com/. All we want is a photo or two and a very short description of what happened to you. There are hundreds of sites trying to deal with the science. We just want to let others know how statins can truly wreck one's life...and that this is not uncommon.
How can "rigorous" studies miss the massive 25% who get muscle pain? Or the apparently unknown number who get memory problems, sleep problems and I'd add, massive fatigue?
Was this a misprint? Perhaps instead of "rigorous" the intended word was "rigged".
Since only 1% of "side effects" are reported by our doctors, and since almost all research is paid for by Big Pharma, and since the raw data of trials is "proprietary" (can any scientist here believe that level of corruption?), then we have no idea of the true degree of damage statins do. And the damage can be horrific and permanent.
Me? I got a severe neuromuscular disease coincident with taking low-dose statin drug for 7 months. I've suffered with this for over 3 years now.
If this has happened to you, we're just starting a Statin Victim website at http://statinvictims.weebly.com/. All we want is a photo or two and a very short description of what happened to you. There are hundreds of sites trying to deal with the science. We just want to let others know how statins can truly wreck one's life...and that this is not uncommon.
3
Thank you for this article. I have mildly elevated cholesterol and take a statin. It controls my cholesterol with no side effects, but my blood sugar has started to rise just a bit, but is no where near elevated. However I had a very bad experience with HRT, where I questioned its use because some patients developed gallbladder problems. I was told not to worry about that. Well I no longer have a gallbladder. So, I told my doctor of my concern. His solution: bring me in to his office every 3 months, and do a blood test each time. I stopped going to him. If he had told me what this article says everything would have been fine, since I have no risk factors for diabetes other than taking a statin: "Those who got diabetes started out with elevated blood sugar levels or other major risk factors for diabetes. Statins appeared to slightly accelerate development of the disease — diabetes emerged about 5.4 weeks sooner, said Dr. Libby, a trial investigator. But, he added, those taking statins did not appear to get diabetes that would not have occurred anyway." Thanks for this info. I chalked the doc up to being one who likes to bill and isn't necessarily a good diagnostician. Where are the good thoughtful docs, like there used to be?
3
If only it could be proven that cholesterol is a causative factor in cardiac events.... There is only an association, much like the association of firemen showing up at the scene of a fire. At some point in the future, American medicine will focus on the cause of disease rather than on treating symptoms.
5
After the new drug has been on the market as long as the statins have there will be a long list of adverse effects associated with it. The problem here, as in many other areas, is the outrageous prices charged in the United States by the pharmaceutical industries. The industry should be regulated or nationalized.
6
One of the best ways to determine if you actually have plaque build up in your arteries is a coronary calcium test. Another test that is not always covered by basic insurance. This is the nub of the Big Pharma marketing juggernaut i.e have your test for your number that your pill can change be what is covered and leave the VAP LPP and CCT to folks who can pay out of pocket to really know what their actual risks are. I am going to guess that if the above tests were covered , all statin use would probably be cut in half if not more.
3
What they need to focus research on is not how to lower cholesterol, but how to keep blood vessels supple. It is the brittleness of blood vessels & subsequent minute cracks that cause cholesterol to begin to for plaques. Cholesterol is the body's repair glue. Because the blood vessels become stiff & brittle, 1st the patches are needed, then the patches fail to fall away when the wound is healed. At the same time, the blood vessels are no longer expanding & contracting to their full effectiveness. If the blood vessels could be kept supple, cholesterol levels would not be a problem.
2
There should be no need for these drugs if people ate plants exclusively. Watch the powerful documentary, Forks Over Knives.
4
The vegans won't give up. You don't need these drugs if you eat lots of plants, along with animal fats. Just avoid as much as possible refined sugar and grains, which in excess (which happens because they provide little satiety) lead to obesity, Type 2 diabetes and elevated cholesterol.
3
This discussion seems to skip the forest and go right for the trees.
There is no mention here the best known treatments for cardiovascular disease. The best treatments are 1) smoking cessation 2) exercise and 3) a Mediterranean diet. The evidence is so strong that even big pharma couldn't get these out of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline. Following these guidelines would cure or prevent the vast majority of cardiovascular illness in the US. See also research by Dr. Dean Ornish or the 2013 New England Journal of Medicine study, "Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet."
It seems misleading to focus on these new drugs without putting them in the perspective of the known treatments for cardiovascular disease. These new agents are a tiny expensive shrub in a vast forest of proven cost effective treatments.
There is no mention here the best known treatments for cardiovascular disease. The best treatments are 1) smoking cessation 2) exercise and 3) a Mediterranean diet. The evidence is so strong that even big pharma couldn't get these out of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline. Following these guidelines would cure or prevent the vast majority of cardiovascular illness in the US. See also research by Dr. Dean Ornish or the 2013 New England Journal of Medicine study, "Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet."
It seems misleading to focus on these new drugs without putting them in the perspective of the known treatments for cardiovascular disease. These new agents are a tiny expensive shrub in a vast forest of proven cost effective treatments.
2
For several years my doctor prescribed exercise and diet for my high cholesterol. It didn't work. Finally she agreed to prescribe a statin, which has worked very well with no side effects. Nonetheless, I still get a lot of exercise and watch my diet.
STEPHAN L. KOPECKY, M.D.
Clinical Profile
"My research involves protocol development, coordination, management and analysis of multicenter randomized cardiovascular trials. Our clinical trial group, MPACT (Mayo Physician Alliance for Clinical Trials), is a network of 700 investigators. We try to ask and answer clinically relevant questions about cardiovascular disease."
Mayo Clinic Faculty Profiles www.mayo.edu
So what is he to do when patients insist they cannot take statins and he can find no other reason for the symptoms they attribute to the drugs?
“We have to start you on something.”
He suggested Praluent, and she reluctantly agreed.
Clinical Profile
"My research involves protocol development, coordination, management and analysis of multicenter randomized cardiovascular trials. Our clinical trial group, MPACT (Mayo Physician Alliance for Clinical Trials), is a network of 700 investigators. We try to ask and answer clinically relevant questions about cardiovascular disease."
Mayo Clinic Faculty Profiles www.mayo.edu
So what is he to do when patients insist they cannot take statins and he can find no other reason for the symptoms they attribute to the drugs?
“We have to start you on something.”
He suggested Praluent, and she reluctantly agreed.
So glad to hear I am far from alone in having quit statins. I was sent to the hospital to have side effects, the two doctors who examined me there confirmed that my liver was swollen, and I've heard too many physicians advise me that the correlation between heart-attack prevention and statins is minimal at best, if at all. That high cholesterol causes heart attacks is a snow job perpetrated by greedy corporations.
2
As a statin user, I quickly found the consumption of foods and beverages containing certain artificial sweeteners to be the direct cause of my painful muscle spasms. Stopped consuming them and the issue disappeared completely. I can deliberately cause a re-occurrence at any time. I doubt it's the same muscle pain that has been referred to for years in the statin product info sheets, but this has been my experience, for whatever it's worth.
2
Just stopped-in to say that the doctors' duty to put their patients first InCludes a cost/benefit conversation. In my experience, way too many docs are clueless about the economic impacts of their prescription pads.
3
I walk with a cane now-I can barely walk or keep my balance on any statin.
2
Statins can end your life as you know it. Just search "statin myopathy", or for instant warning, see https://plus.google.com/102631385922452069974/posts.
Framingham, the standard of "heart risk evaluators" tells me that if I'd lowered my LDL from 190 to 100, I'd have decreased my heart disease risk by about 2% over a full TEN year period. This is trivial in light of the 10% risk of adverse effects ("side" effects).
I and many, many others have suffered incurable neuromuscular disease upon taking statins. Only 1% of adverse effects of drugs are reported: my doctors have told me that the pharmaceutical companies make it too onerous and time-consumring to "prove" that the adverse effect is caused by their drug.
Lowering LDL is a "surrogate marker" (just as shrinking a cancer tumor is a surrogate marker: drug approved, even if the patients die sooner and in more pain).
Every single male from 66 to 75 qualifies for a statin drug. Total sales are about $30 billion.
But the new drugs, on patent, will be the "blockbusters". If you're genetically predisposed to be damaged, your life will be ruined. I myself went from trekking in the Himalayas to constant pain, crutches, and profound weakness and fatigue.
Be warned! And more so if you happen to see a whole bunch of drug pushers (pharmaceutical sales reps) in your doctors' offices.
Framingham, the standard of "heart risk evaluators" tells me that if I'd lowered my LDL from 190 to 100, I'd have decreased my heart disease risk by about 2% over a full TEN year period. This is trivial in light of the 10% risk of adverse effects ("side" effects).
I and many, many others have suffered incurable neuromuscular disease upon taking statins. Only 1% of adverse effects of drugs are reported: my doctors have told me that the pharmaceutical companies make it too onerous and time-consumring to "prove" that the adverse effect is caused by their drug.
Lowering LDL is a "surrogate marker" (just as shrinking a cancer tumor is a surrogate marker: drug approved, even if the patients die sooner and in more pain).
Every single male from 66 to 75 qualifies for a statin drug. Total sales are about $30 billion.
But the new drugs, on patent, will be the "blockbusters". If you're genetically predisposed to be damaged, your life will be ruined. I myself went from trekking in the Himalayas to constant pain, crutches, and profound weakness and fatigue.
Be warned! And more so if you happen to see a whole bunch of drug pushers (pharmaceutical sales reps) in your doctors' offices.
8
Why is the price of the new drug so high?
We should be give an itemization of the costs and how they will be defrayed.
How much did the research cost? How much of that research was done under government grants i.e. with money that we, as taxpayers, have already paid for the development of the drug?
Is the pricing geared to recovering the investment cost in one year or two years or in some reasonable amortization period determined by the horizon of the salability of the drug?
We need a reform in the funding and pricing of drug development as badly as we need upgrading of our methods of personal insurance coverage.
We should be give an itemization of the costs and how they will be defrayed.
How much did the research cost? How much of that research was done under government grants i.e. with money that we, as taxpayers, have already paid for the development of the drug?
Is the pricing geared to recovering the investment cost in one year or two years or in some reasonable amortization period determined by the horizon of the salability of the drug?
We need a reform in the funding and pricing of drug development as badly as we need upgrading of our methods of personal insurance coverage.
2
I tried many statins and many doses and I simply could not tolerate the severe muscle aches. I have lots of other aches and pains associated with living and living long but the pain I had with statins was different and disappeared when I stopped taking them.
The problem isn't whether the pain is real (it is), the problem is our industry dominated health care system. If we spent as much time and energy on fix that, we'd all be healthier.
The problem isn't whether the pain is real (it is), the problem is our industry dominated health care system. If we spent as much time and energy on fix that, we'd all be healthier.
2
Again , Big Pharma wins! The audacity of Big Pharma and the gullibility of the patients as evinced by the comments here is simply unbelievable. Blame the statins for every possible symptom and demand the new expensive drug because Big Pharma is touting this new drug as the discovery of the century. If they were really honest, they would also have a disclosure stating the long term side-effects is unknown because there are no studies yet or even comparable studies to evaluate that this drug is superior. With statins muscle pain is a known side-effect. Rhabdomyalisis is extremely rare as metaanalytical studies have shown. Way before that can happen doctors substitute the statins with other drugs which are equally effective. I know mine did and my LDL has been lowered. Big Pharma touts and the FDA being clueless succumbs. By the time the long term effects are known and the drug withdrawn the predatory pharmaceutical would have made millions ( or even billions! )of $$ and then disappear leaving these patients with long term effects and a health care system scrambling with the ballooned, runaway costs. As an aside, these companies should be banned from false advertising via the internet deceptively and indirectly. And for those with insomnia - muscle pain leading to insomnia is not the same thing as statins causing insomnia. There is a big difference in the conclusions. The insomnia could be attributed to the more likely conditions such as depression and anxiety!
There are alternatives to statins even if you don't want to become vegetarian. I refused statins and did research and wound up lowering my cholesterol 40 points while raising HDL over 20 points by taking niacin and pomegranate juice.
My doctor, who had been angry with me for refusing, just sputtered "Well, just keep doing whatever you are doing."
Why are there no universities studying these alternatives so the word can get out?
My doctor, who had been angry with me for refusing, just sputtered "Well, just keep doing whatever you are doing."
Why are there no universities studying these alternatives so the word can get out?
5
Visit YouTube and look up AMA, Rockefeller, Carnegie. They placed the quack label on any remedy that was not a prescription drug, and then had them outlawed.
Medical schools taught nothing about nutrition until maybe recently, and it is still not emphasized. It is all part of the AMA/MD/Big Pharma culture and profit motive.
Medical schools taught nothing about nutrition until maybe recently, and it is still not emphasized. It is all part of the AMA/MD/Big Pharma culture and profit motive.
1
I am not aware of having any statin related side effects. But I have a couple of other underlying health conditions for which I am also medicated that may mask or cancel them out.
2
The trials that look at memory loss are problematic. This side effect of statins, for which there is a very rational molecular basis, may be simply rare enough and affected by another uncontrolled parameter so as not to become evident in a large population study. This problem is increasingly recognized and common knowledge now in the cancer field, where mechanism-based therapies are on their way of replacing the old-style approaches.
Statins have very poor blood-brain-barrier penetration properties, which is fortunate, otherwise this side effect might be seen much more frequently. However, there may be patients whose blood-brain-barrier is compromised in any number of given ways that allows much greater access of the drug to the brain. This could readily explain some, but most likely not all, of the reported memory problems.
Statins have very poor blood-brain-barrier penetration properties, which is fortunate, otherwise this side effect might be seen much more frequently. However, there may be patients whose blood-brain-barrier is compromised in any number of given ways that allows much greater access of the drug to the brain. This could readily explain some, but most likely not all, of the reported memory problems.
OK... 'crestor' wrecked my stomach - so bad..that i had to take another medication to mediate it... OK.. lipitor did give me muscle aches - that had not been previously present..it was consistent and stopped when I stopped the medication... Taking now (and again after all of these unnecessary 'adjustments').. lovastatin - simvastatin.. once more. It works... I do have to wonder however what impacts it might be having on my own ..'sex drive'..it evaporated... and wonder too then.. if it might be common..the ubiquity of viagara for instance.. is suggestive you know?
2
One of the other key problems, besides cost, of biopharmaceuticals like the PCSK9 inhibitors this article is based on is not mentioned here. That's the simple problem of supply logistics. Statins are simple small molecules that inhibit a key enzyme involved in cholesterol biosynthesis and thereby turn on a feedback mechanism by which the cell wants to cover its cholesterol need by increasing uptake. PCSK9 inhibitors, by contrast, are antibodies which inactivate a protein, i.e. PCSK9, which counteracts statins by decreasing the cholesterol uptake by the cell. Unfortunately, PCSK9 itself is being turned on by statins, so part of the beneficial effect of the statin is negated by the increased expression of PCSK9. Further complicating matters, PCSK9 is not an active enzyme, which could be fairly easily targeted with another small molecule, but works through a more complex cellular mechanism. Antibodies for the moment are the only way to inactivate this mechanism. Unfortunately again, this requires about 0.5 grams of antibody a month. Making them is infinitely more complex and expensive than making a small molecule, so there is little hope of a substantial price decrease in the medium term future. In fact, with more patients demanding this VERY potent drug, there will most likely also be a widening supply/demand discrepancy, which will only serve to drive prices up further. On the long run, this will not be sustainable.
2
Everybody knows, except the author of this article, statins do lower you cholesterol number but have been proven to have no benefit for your heart. You need to read more of the medical literature. see below :
"New Study Shows Using Statins Actually Worsens Your Heart Function
June 22, 2011 | 98,383 views
"Spread the Word to
Friends And Family A study found that statin drugs are associated with decreased myocardial (heart muscle) function.
Statin use is known to be associated with myopathy, muscle weakness and rhabdomyolysis, a breakdown of muscle fibers resulting in the release of muscle fiber contents into the bloodstream. For the study, myocardial function was evaluated in 28 patients."
Later studies confirmed this early result
"New Study Shows Using Statins Actually Worsens Your Heart Function
June 22, 2011 | 98,383 views
"Spread the Word to
Friends And Family A study found that statin drugs are associated with decreased myocardial (heart muscle) function.
Statin use is known to be associated with myopathy, muscle weakness and rhabdomyolysis, a breakdown of muscle fibers resulting in the release of muscle fiber contents into the bloodstream. For the study, myocardial function was evaluated in 28 patients."
Later studies confirmed this early result
4
Changed my diet to mediterranian, lost 20 lbs. Total cholesterol went from 212 down to 135, no meds, just diet. Lose the weight, you will feel a whole lot better than being overweight and full of pills.
6
Excellent advice! And it works, too.
1
I did all those things but they didn't work. I still do them, but also take a statin. From reading these comments, I must be the only person in the world with no side effects from taking a statin.
1
What seems to be missing in this article and in the comments is a critique of Big Pharma who are laughing all the way to the bank - no muscles aches for them.
1
The fact that ~25% of Americans take statin pills is alarming!! Statins and their extraordinarily expensive alternatives should be primarily reserved for those with genetic profiles that mandate use of these drugs. A cost effective alternative to padding the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry and its proponents is to address factors such as lifestyle changes, U.S. obesity rates and corporate influence on food. This is especially true if we can reduce patient exposure to drugs with harmful side effects. These drugs are too often used as expensive bandaids.
2
Fine writing and analysis by Gina Kolata. The trouble with statistics is that each of us is a real person (well, most of us) so when we see the favorable statistical analysis but still have the aches and pains, we get skeptical.
I do sympathize with those who show discomfort with these drugs. The drugs are pushed on us by an industry and a medical profession. That being said, there is science (although it's more of a statistical science) that shows success with statins. Gina's article shows that it's difficult to treat those outliers who appear to have problems with them.
I guess one thing to do is to try to live without the statins after having used them, to see if the contraindications go away. If there is an improvement, then chances are there is a problem. Still, this is by no means conclusive.
And Gina's article does mention the irrational side of the debate. If I think hard enough, I can find some debilitating aspect to the way I feel. That's why it's important to sort out effects of the drugs as opposed to one's general condition and lifestyle. Not easy.
Also the beneficial effects of statins are long term. It's hard to picture one's massive coronary having been prevented fifteen years from now.
Finally, we are all guinea pigs in the greatest long-term study. It's an unpleasant picture, as Ms. Peterson states. Being first is not something that we want to do.
I do sympathize with those who show discomfort with these drugs. The drugs are pushed on us by an industry and a medical profession. That being said, there is science (although it's more of a statistical science) that shows success with statins. Gina's article shows that it's difficult to treat those outliers who appear to have problems with them.
I guess one thing to do is to try to live without the statins after having used them, to see if the contraindications go away. If there is an improvement, then chances are there is a problem. Still, this is by no means conclusive.
And Gina's article does mention the irrational side of the debate. If I think hard enough, I can find some debilitating aspect to the way I feel. That's why it's important to sort out effects of the drugs as opposed to one's general condition and lifestyle. Not easy.
Also the beneficial effects of statins are long term. It's hard to picture one's massive coronary having been prevented fifteen years from now.
Finally, we are all guinea pigs in the greatest long-term study. It's an unpleasant picture, as Ms. Peterson states. Being first is not something that we want to do.
With all these links to studies of various side effects, I don't see a link to a study that shows that using statins to lower cholesterol actually lowers the occurrence of cardio-vascular deaths (or overall deaths). Is there such a study? All I ever see is that taking statins lowers your "risk factors." But does it actually lower death rates? This large-scale experiment has been going on for about 30 years now. What is the outcome, comparing those who take statins as prescribed, and those with similar risk-factors who don't? Population studies should be able to tell us something.
11
No. The only positive results are in older men (over 65) who have already had heart attacks, and who are overweight or obese.
There is not one shred of evidence that statins prevent heart attacks in WOMEN or men under 65.
There is not one shred of evidence that statins prevent heart attacks in WOMEN or men under 65.
4
They do lower death rates, not just cholesterol. And so far they are the only class of cholesterol lowering drugs to be proven to lower death rates. I tell my patients that healthy diet, exercise and weight loss are most important, but that statins cut their risks if they need them. I included a link to an abstract from an important article about this issue below.
Research
The benefits of statins in people without established cardiovascular disease but with cardiovascular risk factors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2376 (Published 30 June 2009)
Abstract
Objectives To investigate whether statins reduce all cause mortality and major coronary and cerebrovascular events in people without established cardiovascular disease but with cardiovascular risk factors, and whether these effects are similar in men and women, in young and older (>65 years) people, and in people with diabetes mellitus.
Results 10 trials enrolled a total of 70 388 people, of whom 34% were women and 23% had diabetes mellitus. Mean follow-up was 4.1 years. Treatment with statins significantly reduced the risk of all cause mortality, major coronary events, and major cerebrovascular events.
Conclusion In patients without established cardiovascular disease but with cardiovascular risk factors, statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events.
Research
The benefits of statins in people without established cardiovascular disease but with cardiovascular risk factors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2376 (Published 30 June 2009)
Abstract
Objectives To investigate whether statins reduce all cause mortality and major coronary and cerebrovascular events in people without established cardiovascular disease but with cardiovascular risk factors, and whether these effects are similar in men and women, in young and older (>65 years) people, and in people with diabetes mellitus.
Results 10 trials enrolled a total of 70 388 people, of whom 34% were women and 23% had diabetes mellitus. Mean follow-up was 4.1 years. Treatment with statins significantly reduced the risk of all cause mortality, major coronary events, and major cerebrovascular events.
Conclusion In patients without established cardiovascular disease but with cardiovascular risk factors, statin use was associated with significantly improved survival and large reductions in the risk of major cardiovascular events.
Thank you for that link, and anyone who is concerned about taking statins should look at these numbers.
Big Pharma needs to send a big "shout out" of thanks to Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress for passing Medicare Part D in 2003 - legislation which prohibits negotiating drug costs for Medicare coverage.
Oh, I forgot. They already said "thanks" when they made those millions of dollars in campaign contributions to the Republicans. Very smart. What a huge return on investment they received for that "political gift".
Let me be blunt. If you are near retirement, about to receive SS and Medicare, and vote Republican, you are either hopelessly naïve or galactically stupid. Probably both. They will cut your benefits to the bone in order to ensure that the money is diverted to Big Pharma to repay the favor for campaign contributions. You can take that to the bank.
Oh, I forgot. They already said "thanks" when they made those millions of dollars in campaign contributions to the Republicans. Very smart. What a huge return on investment they received for that "political gift".
Let me be blunt. If you are near retirement, about to receive SS and Medicare, and vote Republican, you are either hopelessly naïve or galactically stupid. Probably both. They will cut your benefits to the bone in order to ensure that the money is diverted to Big Pharma to repay the favor for campaign contributions. You can take that to the bank.
17
Whenever I read an article about statins and how wonderful they are I remember all the articles by respected physicians about how not wonderful they are and how their effectiveness is less than advertised. When I read an article about physicians who poopoo reports by patients of side effects from drugs, I consider how dangerous those physicians are to their patients. When I read about a new drug that cost $14,000 a year for the rest of ones life! I say boy Americans are really being taken for a ride. Add to that the idea that these drugs are being prescribed before the final trials are complete. I say why do we even have an FDA? Corporations should just be able to sell any thing. The days of the crusading FDA researcher saying no to a corporation are over. Hello fellow Guinea Pigs and here's the bill. Just remember it's the profits, stupid!
12
Geez, how arrogant!. Clearly, you do not suffer from hetero or homozygous cholesterolemia. Nor do you have an autoimmune disease causing joint pain and inflammation. If you did you would have an inkling on how important these drugs are and what the choice was before "big pharmacy" got involved; loads of pain and a very good chance of an early death.
To those who have demanded proof that a plant-based (or vegan) diet is healthier and will reduce cholesterol, here is an article worth reading:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/
If you want to take statins, go right ahead. If you're concerned about side-effects and want another way to reduce your cholesterol and improve your general health, give the plant-based diet a try.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/
If you want to take statins, go right ahead. If you're concerned about side-effects and want another way to reduce your cholesterol and improve your general health, give the plant-based diet a try.
6
It has changed my life for the better. Completely plant based.
1
That's all well and good, by 99% of Americans will never be a vegan, a/k/a living a miserable existence. There is zero evidence that eating animal fats in moderation has anything to do with heart disease.
2
An additional consideration is the recent recommendation to consider starting statin treatment in all individuals (up to age 76) on the basis of the estimated (group) risk for a "cardiac event" in the next 10 years that is more than 7.5%.
It was estimated that this would include the vast majority of men over the age of 65.
More recently, reviews of different cardiovascular risk calculators found that the one recommended for calculating the 7.5% figure overestimated the risk by more than two-thirds.
So, at the moment, it appears that many people without elevated LDL levels may be told to start statin therapy because of a dubious risk calculation based primarily on their age.
It was estimated that this would include the vast majority of men over the age of 65.
More recently, reviews of different cardiovascular risk calculators found that the one recommended for calculating the 7.5% figure overestimated the risk by more than two-thirds.
So, at the moment, it appears that many people without elevated LDL levels may be told to start statin therapy because of a dubious risk calculation based primarily on their age.
5
At $14,000 a year only those with a malignant level of cholesterol ought to be tempted to use these. For the most part high cholesterol can be lowered somewhat without taking expensive drugs. Bottom line is that cholesterol is mostly a problem of aging, it doesn't "get" you for a long time, it is painless and everyone dies of something. As a consumer, although my cholesterol is elevated my conscience would not allow me to burden the society (at my age of 70) with the cost of something that actually may or may not prevent me from dying of a stroke etc.
4
I wish the reporter would do some basic reporting on the efficacy of correlating cholesterol and heart disease. There are numerous scientific papers and articles that debunk the connection, which if true turns the whole statin industry on it's head. Please do the research and stop perpetuating this myth about cholesterol.
17
My suggestion: Watch the "Law & Order" episode about Gleevic, or Gleevix, or whatever it's called, and then draw your own conclusions about medicine in the 21st Century.
Watching Jerry Orbach is always a treat for me.
As for this article, and statins, I'm goin' leave that to you "Experts?".
Bon Chance.
Watching Jerry Orbach is always a treat for me.
As for this article, and statins, I'm goin' leave that to you "Experts?".
Bon Chance.
3
Ms. Peterson won't be here in 5 yrs. She needs hospice more than any drugs
I switched to a no-fat, plant based diet on January 1st. My cholesterol numbers changed dramatically - 'bad' cholesterol dropped more than 70 points (this was after just twelve weeks when I had my bloodwork re-tested). I'm sure it has improved even more since then. I have no interest in going on statin drugs and I wish to fight the family history of heart disease. I'm 56 years old and female. Not overweight (about 125 pounds) but a crummy family history. I wonder how many of these doctors have encouraged their patients to switch to a completely plant-based diet? I follow the recommendations of the Cleveland Clinic's Dr. Esselstyn. This may not be for everyone, but for me, it was an amazing transition for the better. Not only do I feel better, I'm not paying a huge amount of money to doctors and/or pharmaceutical companies.
5
@Lbj12:
Both fats and fat-soluble vitamins are essential nutrients.
Both fats and fat-soluble vitamins are essential nutrients.
2
New Alternatives to Statins Add to a Quandry on Cholesteral
"But now they will be able to offer the two new drugs — Praluent, made by Sanofi Regeneron and approved by the Food and Drug Administration last month, which costs $14,600 a year, and Repatha, made by Amgen and approved Thursday, at $14,100 a year."
Yeah, but-
"Although the drugs seem remarkably safe and free of side effects, large studies to test their safety and efficacy in preventing heart attacks, strokes and cardiovascular deaths are still underway."
Az. voters passed the (paraphrased) "if whatever 'legally-approved things' do not work then Doctors are to be allowed to use 'not-yet proven safe' alternatives" measure.
In due course this was meant to be an 'all hope gone' measure.
Could back-door politics clear Pharmaceutical/Medical
Care Systems in being able to offer the 2 new drugs to the 'guinea pig classes' to determine safety and efficacy?
"But now they will be able to offer the two new drugs — Praluent, made by Sanofi Regeneron and approved by the Food and Drug Administration last month, which costs $14,600 a year, and Repatha, made by Amgen and approved Thursday, at $14,100 a year."
Yeah, but-
"Although the drugs seem remarkably safe and free of side effects, large studies to test their safety and efficacy in preventing heart attacks, strokes and cardiovascular deaths are still underway."
Az. voters passed the (paraphrased) "if whatever 'legally-approved things' do not work then Doctors are to be allowed to use 'not-yet proven safe' alternatives" measure.
In due course this was meant to be an 'all hope gone' measure.
Could back-door politics clear Pharmaceutical/Medical
Care Systems in being able to offer the 2 new drugs to the 'guinea pig classes' to determine safety and efficacy?
1
Hyperlipidemia is a lifestyle disease that would best be treated first by lifestyle modification. I have had patients drop their total cholesterol by over 40mg/dL in 4 weeks by switching from a standard American diet (SAD) to a plant-based one. The "side effects" of the plant-based diet are weight loss, decreased blood pressure and blood sugar, resolution of constipation, and increased energy. The cost in dollars is minimal.
9
In order to answer the cholesterol "problem," science needs to study lipoproteins more deeply and to distinguish, for example, the various forms of low density lipoproteins. Statistical analysis on a very gross level between high levels of "LDLs" and plaque levels in atherosclerosis has led to this massive prescription of statins during decades in which doctors told patients to reduce their intake of fats in general and animal fats in particular.
Newer nutritional studies have shown that there is a much more complex relationship between consumption of saturated fats and atherosclerosis than doctors have advised for a long time. Wouldn't it be ironic if arterial plaque was reduced when patients stopped consuming polyunsaturated fats and started consuming more saturated fats? If we started cooking with more coconut oil and eliminated safflower and canola oils (both of which have been correlated with bad health effects) could we reduce our statin usage? Sure would be less expensive AND have less side effects, whether those side effects are "felt" as muscle pain or "unfelt" as metabolic problems.
Newer nutritional studies have shown that there is a much more complex relationship between consumption of saturated fats and atherosclerosis than doctors have advised for a long time. Wouldn't it be ironic if arterial plaque was reduced when patients stopped consuming polyunsaturated fats and started consuming more saturated fats? If we started cooking with more coconut oil and eliminated safflower and canola oils (both of which have been correlated with bad health effects) could we reduce our statin usage? Sure would be less expensive AND have less side effects, whether those side effects are "felt" as muscle pain or "unfelt" as metabolic problems.
6
My mother started taking statins in her 70's. At age 87 she was diagnosed with Alzheimer's. She is now 93: healthy body with deteriorating mind.
Is anyone asking the question of wether or not we want our bodies to outlive our brains?
For those of us lucky enough to have moderate levels of cholesterol, maybe we should think about trusting a healthy lifestyle and accepting our mortality.
Is anyone asking the question of wether or not we want our bodies to outlive our brains?
For those of us lucky enough to have moderate levels of cholesterol, maybe we should think about trusting a healthy lifestyle and accepting our mortality.
14
A lot of statin problems started when they went off patent and became produce as generics. We now know that quality control is not the same in generic meds (the FDA is starting a whole new division to monitor them, in recognition of this problem). First step: stop eating things w cholesterol in them (animal products); start eating more high-fiber foods (fiber helps the body get rid of cholesterol); reduce high-simple-carb foods (these heighten your body's own production of cholesterol). If those don't work, then look at the many natural things that can bring it down (red yeast rice is apparently one) before messing around with pharma products!
1
The theory that food with high cholesterol like eggs results in high choleserol has been thoroughly debunked. All you need to do is a simple Google search.
2
"who cannot lower their LDL by other means." Whoa! The goal is not 'lowering the LDL reading' but rather 'lowering the risk of heart attack'. And there are plenty of ways of doing that that don't involve a lifetime of expensive drugs. Of course some of those involve such unpleasant things as exercise, changing one's eating habits, quitting smoking ...
5
When one doctor prescribed statins for lowering cholesterol, my primary provider came up with a table that showed the minimal life extension I would have if I started on it Since I believe in taking the absolute minimum of medications that the body does not produce, I passed. Now, 15 years later, at 91, I have no problems and my cholesterol is the same, elevated level as then.
Similarly, I found that my blood pressure medication had been over-prescribed and the side effects disappeared when it was lowered tom25% of the original prescription. -- The lesson, get a second opinion.
Similarly, I found that my blood pressure medication had been over-prescribed and the side effects disappeared when it was lowered tom25% of the original prescription. -- The lesson, get a second opinion.
7
It is the opinion of an ever growing number of esteemed cardiologists, physicians and medical researchers in general that there is no demonstrable connection between serum cholesterol levels and heart disease. Many credible voices have been pointing this out for decades. My, the power and reach of dogma and Big Pharma....
9
Help! My Dad has been taking statins for years and complains of fatigue, memory problems and he walks like a toddler. He has trouble descending stairs and looks like he is out of balance as he shuffles along. No one can figure out why he has these problems. We have always talked about the statins because we cant find any other ideas, but the docs can't either and recommends continuing the statins. Ideas. testimonies???
2
For people who experience side effects, they go away after a few weeks of stopping the medication. How about talking with the doctor to stop the medication for a while and see what happens? What harm could there possibly be with doing a test? What harm could a 3 month sabbatical have? Give it a try.
What you don't say is whether your dad has other conditions that may be causing these symptoms. While the drugs have side effects, it isn't the case that for all people experiencing something the medication is the cause.
What you don't say is whether your dad has other conditions that may be causing these symptoms. While the drugs have side effects, it isn't the case that for all people experiencing something the medication is the cause.
3
Thanks Bill. I think you are right about testing a 3 month sabbatical. He doesn't have any medical problems that would explain his balance or memory symptoms. That is what's so perplexing. Thanks again.
-Rob
-Rob
1
Has your father considering just stopping taking his statins and see what happens?
1
A system where we, the taxpayers, underwrite most of the research and development costs for the pharmaceutical industry and then get hit with insanely high prices to underwrite their marketing costs, is a very bad system. If Big Pharma can't find a way to keep their prices under control, perhaps it's time to look at nationalizing the industry. After all, we're paying for it, anyway.
12
The drugs are riddled with troubling side effects and research over the last 5-10 years has shown questionable benefits at best. The drug companies want you to keep taking them for the same reasons the tobacco companies want you to keep smoking. Wake up people, you have been duped again.
10
We read many articles about the dilemma of paying exorbitant prices for new drugs. How to afford. How to decide who gets the drugs etc. Why are we not talking about how to control these unconscionable prices by predatory drug companies? Are we totally spineless?
10
This article could be written ten-fold-over mentioning any disease we know and always following doctor's advise: "take these pills and see me 3 months from now."
More patients die an early dead because they do follow doctor's advise every 3 months thus loosing energy, clear mind, don't go for exercise any more, get depressed, you name it.
Following a good regimen of sleep and exercise, getting proper food, and understand that you, repeat you, are the boss of your body solves many medical problems. If not, the chances are very low to find an alternative. About two weeks ago the NYTimes had an article about a brilliant and lovely woman dying age 52 of brain cancer. She was a cancer specialist and her husband a brain specialist.
Enough said.
More patients die an early dead because they do follow doctor's advise every 3 months thus loosing energy, clear mind, don't go for exercise any more, get depressed, you name it.
Following a good regimen of sleep and exercise, getting proper food, and understand that you, repeat you, are the boss of your body solves many medical problems. If not, the chances are very low to find an alternative. About two weeks ago the NYTimes had an article about a brilliant and lovely woman dying age 52 of brain cancer. She was a cancer specialist and her husband a brain specialist.
Enough said.
4
The risk of coronary events RAPIDLY returns to baseline after cessation of Statins. So rapidly that it seems unlikely that new atherosclerotic plaque could form and become signifiant in such a short interval.
I have long been tantalized by the thought that the Statins reduce CAD not through their cholesterol lowering mechanism but through some other, perhaps a direct effect upon endothelial lining of arteries.
The older pre-Statins drugs lowered cholesterol but had a negligible protective Coronary effect.
It would be necessary to look at the effect if these new drugs on actual Coronary morbidity rather than their ability ton lower cholesterol!
I have long been tantalized by the thought that the Statins reduce CAD not through their cholesterol lowering mechanism but through some other, perhaps a direct effect upon endothelial lining of arteries.
The older pre-Statins drugs lowered cholesterol but had a negligible protective Coronary effect.
It would be necessary to look at the effect if these new drugs on actual Coronary morbidity rather than their ability ton lower cholesterol!
3
Since these newer, enormously more expensive cholesterol fighters are relatively side-effect free (so far) here's another instance where the Feds should cease all this nonsense foreign aid giveaway and spend the same money on making these medications much more affordable.
3
The important words here: so far. Sometimes it takes years for side effects and dangers to show up in significant numbers that the health care field actually takes note and action.
1
How I wish that discussions about cholesterol levels would include some focus on any proven adverse effects of high levels (of whatever sort -- LDL, etc.). I am one of many well-educated people, not a doctor, who wants to understand this a lot better.
Arterial plaque? Well, as I understand it, cholesterol repairs damage to arterial lining, which yes means plaque buildup, but the underlying cause is inflammation or damage from things like trans fats. So blaming cholesterol for plaque is like blaming the firefighter for the fire. And AFAIK, it's well known that cholesterol has countless other beneficial roles to play in the body and brain. It's not just a "bad guy" that must be lowered and lowered. That makes very common sense: why would our bodies be designed to produce something that is harmful overall; and why would studies of the elderly correlate high cholesterol levels with longer life and better brain function?
So, if a patient has CLEAN arteries and also has high cholesterol, surely that person should not take a statin unless the cause of the high levels is determined and the cholesterol's function is detrimental. A patient with arterial plaque might benefit from lower levels of LDL but it's a trade-off, and we don't fully understand the price to be paid.
Has anyone seen any studies that show any adverse effects of cholesterol other than contributing to arterial plaque?
Arterial plaque? Well, as I understand it, cholesterol repairs damage to arterial lining, which yes means plaque buildup, but the underlying cause is inflammation or damage from things like trans fats. So blaming cholesterol for plaque is like blaming the firefighter for the fire. And AFAIK, it's well known that cholesterol has countless other beneficial roles to play in the body and brain. It's not just a "bad guy" that must be lowered and lowered. That makes very common sense: why would our bodies be designed to produce something that is harmful overall; and why would studies of the elderly correlate high cholesterol levels with longer life and better brain function?
So, if a patient has CLEAN arteries and also has high cholesterol, surely that person should not take a statin unless the cause of the high levels is determined and the cholesterol's function is detrimental. A patient with arterial plaque might benefit from lower levels of LDL but it's a trade-off, and we don't fully understand the price to be paid.
Has anyone seen any studies that show any adverse effects of cholesterol other than contributing to arterial plaque?
5
Both the Medical establishment and and Big Pharma are absolutely convinced that Statins do not produce aches in lower leg muscles. I am proof that they do since I stopped taking them my legs I no longer have the annoying aches. While I agree that cholesterol should not remain high in the blood stream neither has statins been proven effective against heart attacks, etc. I suggest that some older folks need a little high cholesterol for their brains (but not too much). Produce a drug that has little or no side effects and you have a winner.
2
Isn't it interesting that the "25% side effect" issue started to emerge when most statins came off patent?
6
"Good clinical trial results" will disappear when you remove the fox from the henhouse. Drug companies studying their own product is beyond insane.
8
I tried stanton made my arm have nerve pain so I stopped. Make sure before you take drugs the side effects are not worse than the original ailment becuase you can end up worse than before. These days they only concentrate on one problem where it appears the dangerous side effects aren't any concern what so ever.
4
About 1.5 years ago I quit statins and took up two tablespoons daily of chia seed in smoothies. My main cholesterol number quickly dropped below 200 (from, I think, about 220), and now stands at 180. I also lost weight and felt great, as Dr. Bob Arnot (NBC/CBS/Men's Journal) suggested would happen in his book, The Aztec Diet.
Chia is an inexpensive and natural alternative to statins. It's worth trying.
Chia is an inexpensive and natural alternative to statins. It's worth trying.
5
My doctor told me I had dangerously high cholesterol and that I needed to take drugs to control it. I refused.
I remembered my aunt told me to eat oatmeal everyday. So I tried that. One year later when I went back to the doctor she told me my cholesterol was normal and that she was not concerned with it anymore. OATMEAL!
I remembered my aunt told me to eat oatmeal everyday. So I tried that. One year later when I went back to the doctor she told me my cholesterol was normal and that she was not concerned with it anymore. OATMEAL!
7
Food is cheaper than drugs. Eat more fat (oils, nuts, eggs, avocado) less sugar/ carbs. Stay off of statins. High cholesterol by itself is not a indicator of potential heart attack risk ... you need to know cholesterol particle size. Small particles = bad, large particles = good.
6
I agree - food is WAY cheaper. But I have eliminated all fats and stick to only a plant based diet. It has been an amazing transformation for me.
1
A statin, Lipitor, was not doing much at all for my cholesterol, and I ended up with the beginnings of liver failure. It was quite unpleasant. Were statins the life savers that pharmaceuticals companies, our guardian angels, hyped about, perhaps it would be well worth it. As it were my cholesterol levels are now excellent as a result of cutting -not fat- but carbohydrates.
7
I wonder if Dr. Kopecky is suggesting that patients not be their own advocates. We all know that doctors cannot possibly stay abreast of all new information, particularly since so many seem to be enormously overburdened by their patient loads. I should also point out that, generally, doctors do not spend enough time with their patients. They over-diagnose, and over medicate. That's what really raises health care costs. It's time to take the profit out of healthcare.
8
What about all the herbal, NON-patentable & therefore much cheaper remedies for high cholesterol? The AMA & Big Pharma are the real mafia/ drug cartels in this country.
5
I attended a lecture by a fellow USF researcher who described the effects of low intake of carbohydrates on LDL cholesterol. I have rigorously followed the low-carb diet, and the result has been amazing: my LDL dropped significantly (to an acceptable level).
The second result of my low-carb diet is that the high density LDL (the "bad" LDL) is the fraction of LDL that plates out on the veins. The low density LDL is not "bad LDL" because it floats along with the blood and does not deposit on the blood vessels. My low-density LDL has been about two-thirds of the total LDL while on the diet. My high density LDL is within acceptable range.
I am sure that most people will not follow the low-carb diet, but for those of us who do, it has no side effects except welcome weight loss.
The second result of my low-carb diet is that the high density LDL (the "bad" LDL) is the fraction of LDL that plates out on the veins. The low density LDL is not "bad LDL" because it floats along with the blood and does not deposit on the blood vessels. My low-density LDL has been about two-thirds of the total LDL while on the diet. My high density LDL is within acceptable range.
I am sure that most people will not follow the low-carb diet, but for those of us who do, it has no side effects except welcome weight loss.
6
It's a great business model. Create a drug where studies find no side effects to the many people experience. Create new drugs to fix those side effects that must also be taken in perpetuity. CQ-10 for the muscle aches, Viagra for the sexual dysfunction, etc...
Can we really expect patient interests to reign supreme when there is so much money to be harvested?
Can we really expect patient interests to reign supreme when there is so much money to be harvested?
12
It may be notable that the side effects of both statins and other drugs that reduce cholesterol levels by other mechanisms, such as reducing uptake from the gut, are essentially the same...muscle pain, etc. This begs the question of whether the side effects are caused by the drugs themselves or by the condition of reduced cholesterol, which is so important for vital processes. Your body wants that cholesterol. Either you get it from your food or by de novo synthesis. Watch out if you don't get it.
6
I took Pravastatin 40mg a day, within 6 months I had a problem moving my head, neck and shoulder. Within 7 months, problems with my hip joints, by the 9th month I was just about crying every time I had to get up from the chair. I went from being active, doing at least 3 miles a day to being a lump. I saw, allergists, othropedics, family doctor and my cardiologist during this time. They saw the progressive deterioration and did nothing! Finally on my birthday 1 year after starting the pravastatin I stopped taking it, within 18 hours pain in my legs and hip joints alleviated. Within 24 hours I was pain free in those areas, however due to the horrendous pain in the shoulder and neck during the course of this medicine which made me use these muscles as little as possible, it took a year of physical therapy to get MOST of the movement back. So what did the primary doc say? She said "oh you probably just didn't feel good for the day"" and proceeded to prescribe a "smaller dose of statin" of a different kind - Lipitor (it was equivalent to the same dosage I had been taking of pravastatin). No one did a CK test of any kind so the reaction is listed on my medical record as "Myalgia". The FDA has a way of having reactions documented - but they are ignored as being unscientific. None of the doctors want to do the paperwork for it. I tried Zetia, I had been on it since April, Just got off- same problems, however different Doctor, high CK levels, pain. Need more listening Docs!
4
The percentage of patients unable to control cholesterol through diet and exercise is low. Meaning familial or genetic hyperlipidemia is low. High consumption of animal fat in any form, meat, butter, cheese, etc, is the major cause of high cholesterol in otherwise healthy people especially when paired with a sedentary life style. People with diabetes have high cholesterol and the major cause of diabetes is high fructose corn syrup and obesity. Unfortunately,when you turn on the TV or read a magazine there will be far more advertisements for expensive medications from pharmaceutical companies then there are public service announcements on alternatives to sitting in front of the TV, eating that hot dog and drinking that high fructose corn syrup saturated soda pop or fruit drink.
1
@Andrea Gault:
Kind of incoherent, if meat and butter is the cause of high cholesterol in one sentence and then HFCS is the cause in your next sentence. Eating naturally fatty foods, including animal fats _corrects_ blood lipids for most people, especially when fatty animal foods replace refined carbs in the diet.
Kind of incoherent, if meat and butter is the cause of high cholesterol in one sentence and then HFCS is the cause in your next sentence. Eating naturally fatty foods, including animal fats _corrects_ blood lipids for most people, especially when fatty animal foods replace refined carbs in the diet.
1
People with only mild problems should try diet and exercise first. A diet with 0% fats and sugars, and two hours of walking every day will help a surprising number of people.
Let me warn you, though, that the no-fat no-sugar diet is incredibly bland, and most people can't take it after a few weeks.
Let me warn you, though, that the no-fat no-sugar diet is incredibly bland, and most people can't take it after a few weeks.
1
Why a no-fat, no-sugar diet? Why not a plant-based diet? After all, there is no cholesterol in plants. Fortunately, a plant-based diet is not bland, and most people can stick to it for the rest of their life.
Try a plant-based diet for six months. You'll be amazed by the effect on your cholesterol numbers. I was.
Try a plant-based diet for six months. You'll be amazed by the effect on your cholesterol numbers. I was.
2
There is absolutely no reason to go on a no-fat diet. Eating fish does not give you high cholesterol. It is overconsuption of refined sugar and junk carbs (bread, cereal, pasta) that leads to obesity and higher cholesterol levels.
5
Unconscionable to believe that $14000 for a pill could benefit where in that resource could be used for nutrition education, lifestyle management and affect and benefit not just an individual but the population of obesity and metabolic disease. One in three children will be obese with current good and lifestyle as such. Shame on anyone even considering this treatment as an option.
2
Can someone please tell me why, if true, Medicare pays big Pharma retail for RX drugs? No quantity discount? You don't think it has something to do with contributions to political campaigns?
4
As I understand it congress made it illegal for Medicare to negotiate drug prices with big pharma. All part of Medicare part D which I am sure was a government giveaway in return for contributions and boondoggles for congress.
5
Mark, Because that's how President Bush and the Republican Congress had it worded in the Medicare Part D legislation
2
Subclinical condition yields side effects. Can't they screen Coenzyme Q10 levels before giving statins, and either don't give or give with supplementation and monitoring. This article acts like the muscle aches are of unknown etiology. And they are not.
4
Does anyone know of a double blind study on statin side effects? I mean - take a group of people who complain of statin side effects, then give half of them a placebo and half their normal statin dose for a month, but don't let either the patients or the test administrators know who is getting what.
2
Been taking statins for years now with no ill effects that cannot be attributed to the normal aging process. I will be quite interested to see if Pharma starts raising the price of the older statins since the new, extremely expensive, drugs will provide cover for an unwarranted and unethical re-pricing. Just sayin' ...
3
I was put on a Statin (Pravistatin) for years by my doctors and told all my "side effects" were merely signs of old age. I believed them. However, one day, now nearly three and a half years ago while waiting for my med delivery I decided to see what was on the Internet for side effects. It was like being hit over the head with a club. I had tons of "side effects."
After lot of research, a lot of research, what I discovered was that the most important nutrient that repair and maintain the Central Nervous System, which basically means your entire body, are greatly reduced by the use of statins. In short those nasty fat nutrients, A, D, E and K can be reduced by 50% in just two weeks. So you start to go into slow decline. For otherwise healthy people the process may be slow at first, for those with compromised or poor health the progression to disabilities is heightened.
Statins are widely used and should have cut down on death from heart attacks. Yet those numbers have only dropped by a small number, more attributable to better choices in diet and exorcise. Do your own homework and don't believe everything you read.
After lot of research, a lot of research, what I discovered was that the most important nutrient that repair and maintain the Central Nervous System, which basically means your entire body, are greatly reduced by the use of statins. In short those nasty fat nutrients, A, D, E and K can be reduced by 50% in just two weeks. So you start to go into slow decline. For otherwise healthy people the process may be slow at first, for those with compromised or poor health the progression to disabilities is heightened.
Statins are widely used and should have cut down on death from heart attacks. Yet those numbers have only dropped by a small number, more attributable to better choices in diet and exorcise. Do your own homework and don't believe everything you read.
9
One of the points of this article is that there is a lot of bad information about statins on the internet. Did you limit your research to peer-reviewed scientific journals? I've been taking pravastatin for many years without ill effect. I started after years of attempting to reduce cholesterol levels by diet and exercise wasn't working.
Most Republicans want to eliminate Obamacare and start over on health care. No-cost government prescription drugs for all would be a good place to start. We need to socialize Big Pharma by making all drug developing and manufacturing a nonprofit enterprise.
6
Minimal side effects, you say? I am 81 and until recent years never experienced a side effect from a prescription drug in my life until I tried two statin drugs. Pravachol gave me nauseating dizzy spells, and Lipitor left me with an ugly, itchy skin rash, in all the hot spots, only now disappearing after seven months off the drug (it took six months to develop). At my age, I have made the decision to take my chances with cholesterol.
10
Absolutely absurd for an 81 year old to be on a staton if there is no history of heart disease
5
Give me a break -- what do you expect at 81. THAT attitude IS THE MAIN cause of such high sickness care costs in this country
1
What is the point of a longer life if I have to work until I'm dead to pay for my medications? When is this nation going to wake up and realize that health care can best be handled with a federal system, as every other nation has realized? No negotiating team on Earth carries the weight of the U.S. government. They can share the risk and rewards of new drugs like these among the producers, caretakers, and patients like no one else.
8
I am 66 and I have been on Lipitor for around 35 years. No issues yet in the cardiovascular area.
However, I was noticing my legs were easily tiring on our daily walks so I quit taking my Lipitor.
I've since restarted taking it as quitting made no difference......my legs tire more easily because I'm getting old.
However, I was noticing my legs were easily tiring on our daily walks so I quit taking my Lipitor.
I've since restarted taking it as quitting made no difference......my legs tire more easily because I'm getting old.
4
I have genetically high cholesterol. I have tried statins and can attest to the fact that in my case, they cause debilitating muscle cramps and pain. I am certain because at first I did not attribute the debilitating cramps and pains in my legs to the statin I was taking. I tried changing my modes of exercise (no zumba, no quirky hi impact exercises)...but my leg collapsed on the tennis court...I stopped the statin and the leg muscle cramps/pain went away So, as an N=1, I can confirm that the statins were the cause. I have a 95-year-old friend who is clearheaded and active, except he can barely walk. He told me that he should have stopped taking statins when his muscle pains/weakness first showed up. Now it is irreversible, and he believes that came from the statins. My IM do, who is also trained in alternative medicine, has recommended lots of supplements. I take red yeast rice (the genesis of statins), low dose, along with omegas, CoQ10 etc etc...AND Zetia. I can tolerate Zetia. I have lowered my cholesterol without statins. Worth checking it out.
2
Instead of 'managed care', how about managed research cost, managing what research and development can be patented for profit, and managed prices for pharmaceuticals?
3
Hmmmm... I had higher cholesterol levels than my doctor wanted. I started taking Crestor. Everything was fine for YEARS. Then I started very gradually getting an issue with my leg muscles. NOTE: It was so gradual I didn't even associate it with the Crestor. One day I knelt down and really couldn't get up. Arms were fine, I had to pull myself up.
I started investigating, went off of the Crestor for a short period of time, two weeks... Zero effect. Must not be the Crestor, right? WRONG. Once the statin does it's damage, it can take up to one year to recover. It took me about 5 months. A friend of mine, who actually has heart problems, couldn't get out of bed with the statins.
Much to the chagrin of my GP, I don't take any statins now. It's been a year and nearly all my strength has come back. I now eat more hot spicy foods and much less of the greasy stuff. My cholesterol is still higher than the norm, BUT I have no heart problems in my family tree and my parents are 90 and still living.
I started investigating, went off of the Crestor for a short period of time, two weeks... Zero effect. Must not be the Crestor, right? WRONG. Once the statin does it's damage, it can take up to one year to recover. It took me about 5 months. A friend of mine, who actually has heart problems, couldn't get out of bed with the statins.
Much to the chagrin of my GP, I don't take any statins now. It's been a year and nearly all my strength has come back. I now eat more hot spicy foods and much less of the greasy stuff. My cholesterol is still higher than the norm, BUT I have no heart problems in my family tree and my parents are 90 and still living.
6
Unfortunately, many of the comments posted here reflect the ignorance that our patients find all over the internet when they develop vascular disease and need to be put on a statin. As a practicing cardiologist for over twenty years, I can say (along with anyone else involved in this field) that there is no doubt statins change the course of coronary disease.
The tolerance problem is a real one, and these new drugs may be very helpful for that subset of patients who have had trouble with muscle side effects from statins, but we will need to be very judicious given the tremendous cost differential.
The tolerance problem is a real one, and these new drugs may be very helpful for that subset of patients who have had trouble with muscle side effects from statins, but we will need to be very judicious given the tremendous cost differential.
4
A doctor once suggested I try statins for my cholesterol levels before the days when they also suggest you take Coenzyme Q-10, which I was taking not because my doctor told me about it but because I saw a story about it in the Weekly World News, that old paper with all the crazy stories. The Co-Q10 made a big difference in the incidence of episodes of atrial-fibrillation I was having.
The minute I went on statins I was having all sorts of arrhythmia problems. I was constantly feeling like I was about to go into A-fib. After 10 days and having to sleep sitting up to avoid going into A-fib when I slept, I stopped.
My cardiologist and primary care physician didn't know that statins deplete the natural Co-Q10 in your body. Why would they, the brochures about them from the pharmaceutical reps never mention it. I have heard that now doctors are suggesting supplementation for people on statins. I was told by somebody that this was something the pharmaceutical companies knew all about but downplayed it in their studies.
Well the point of all this is, given what happened to me and what my doctors didn't seem to know, how can any of these trial results be trusted?
The minute I went on statins I was having all sorts of arrhythmia problems. I was constantly feeling like I was about to go into A-fib. After 10 days and having to sleep sitting up to avoid going into A-fib when I slept, I stopped.
My cardiologist and primary care physician didn't know that statins deplete the natural Co-Q10 in your body. Why would they, the brochures about them from the pharmaceutical reps never mention it. I have heard that now doctors are suggesting supplementation for people on statins. I was told by somebody that this was something the pharmaceutical companies knew all about but downplayed it in their studies.
Well the point of all this is, given what happened to me and what my doctors didn't seem to know, how can any of these trial results be trusted?
6
Before jumping onto new, expensive cholesterol lowering drugs, try the oldest
statin drug,pravastatin! It is "hydrophilic" unlike other statins, and less likely
to cause muscle pain. It is working very well for me.
statin drug,pravastatin! It is "hydrophilic" unlike other statins, and less likely
to cause muscle pain. It is working very well for me.
Count me as another who had terrible side effects from statins, as well as the loss of my foot muscles. I don't understand the continued condescension toward people who have been damaged by these drugs: we usually share many of the same agonies and we know exactly what caused them.
3
While taking statins I developed dementia-like memory issues that lasted for several years after I stopped taking the drug. I would ask the researchers who found no side effects in statin users to confirm that they did not somehow benefit financially by reporting no side effects.
6
It is disturbing that medical authorities are exulting over "LDL levels almost never before seen in adults". This can only follow from simplistic thinking that if lower levels of a substance are beneficial, there is no limit to how low they should go.
But if extreme levels were good for you, then we certainly should see some evidence that they can occur naturally. If we don't, then it might be wise to check very carefully why human evolution, which is generally very clever in such matters, got it wrong in this case.
But if extreme levels were good for you, then we certainly should see some evidence that they can occur naturally. If we don't, then it might be wise to check very carefully why human evolution, which is generally very clever in such matters, got it wrong in this case.
9
I don't trust drug companies who are worried about one thing and that's profit. Countries like Cuba have different approaches to medicine, which is to help the most people at the lowest cost. Cuba's diabetes medicine is an example of this. The studies, which the companies pay for, are often flawed and findings that don't look good are swept under the carpet.
5
There are cheap, simple treatments that should always be tried in those paitents trying to lower their risk for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease:
1. Diet
2. Weight loss
3. Exercise
4. Abstention from cigarette smoking (including "medical" marijuana)
All of these interventions are cheap. Unfortunately, they all require patients to actually exert themselves and essentially pay for their own treatment. It is much easier for patients to have others pay for their treatment, even if the costs are much higher than these simple interventions. This is a fundamental flaw in all 3rd party payment systems: costs are born mainly by others, so there is no incentive for the individual patient to save money. If each individual patient had to pay $14k out of pocket, patients would me much more motivated to try these cheap, simple interventions.
1. Diet
2. Weight loss
3. Exercise
4. Abstention from cigarette smoking (including "medical" marijuana)
All of these interventions are cheap. Unfortunately, they all require patients to actually exert themselves and essentially pay for their own treatment. It is much easier for patients to have others pay for their treatment, even if the costs are much higher than these simple interventions. This is a fundamental flaw in all 3rd party payment systems: costs are born mainly by others, so there is no incentive for the individual patient to save money. If each individual patient had to pay $14k out of pocket, patients would me much more motivated to try these cheap, simple interventions.
3
It's exceedingly rare for patients to change their eating habits and their activity level over the longterm. They are manipulated by the food industry and the drug people.
My mother did yoga 5 days a week, walked a lot, was vegetarian and very careful and controlled with her diet and all around in splendid health at the age of 76 - but she had high cholesterol and had had for well over 10 years, which was obviously inherited as her diet was virtually cholesterol free. She also hated the statins - they made her feel achey and sluggish and all around not well. She refused t take them. A little over a year ago this robust woman had a stroke caused ulitmately by the plaque associated with high cholesterol - it scared the bejesus out of her as well as her daughters - today she takes her statins religiously, the side effects have more or less disappeared and she is back in rude health. Her cholesterol - thanks to the statins - is excellent and she and her children are thrilled and grateful that such drugs exist.
28
A vegetarian diet is not "virtually cholesterol free". There is a lot of cholesterol in eggs and dairy. To reduce your cholesterol, you have to avoid all animal products.
1
QUESTION for the docs here: Do VERY HIGH HDL levels 'cancel out' high LDL?
@HoiHa:
You're making the assumptions that a diet low in cholesterol leads to low blood serum cholesterol (not true), and that a vegetarian diet is inherently good for cardiovascular health (also not true, or at least not true in all cases).
You're making the assumptions that a diet low in cholesterol leads to low blood serum cholesterol (not true), and that a vegetarian diet is inherently good for cardiovascular health (also not true, or at least not true in all cases).
3
I stopped taking statins after the obvious chronic leg-muscle weakness and pain, overwhelming fatigue and cotton-headedness became unbearable. Probably the worst part was trying to accomplish something during the day with half a brain. Friends who know me well definitely noticed the slow onset of innate stupidity. I won't mention the brand-name, but it's heavily promoted on TV with ads so inane they are revolting. They make me retch (round up the usual subjects).
I don't buy argument that satins cause no discernible mental impairment. It's common knowledge that many "researchers" are little more and scarcely better than Paladins -- guns for hire. Theirs is a ceaseless search for funding, and success often depends on publishing results favorable to those funding them. When it comes to the corruption of entire professions, institutions and science itself by special interests throwing big money around my cynicism is boundless.
Why might statins make you stupid? My theory, unsupported by anything except personal experience, is: the brain is starving, because some of those purged blood fats feed it.
I don't buy argument that satins cause no discernible mental impairment. It's common knowledge that many "researchers" are little more and scarcely better than Paladins -- guns for hire. Theirs is a ceaseless search for funding, and success often depends on publishing results favorable to those funding them. When it comes to the corruption of entire professions, institutions and science itself by special interests throwing big money around my cynicism is boundless.
Why might statins make you stupid? My theory, unsupported by anything except personal experience, is: the brain is starving, because some of those purged blood fats feed it.
7
I would have liked the article to have included information on how prescription of statins is handled in other countries, where the profits of private companies do not run the show. Drug prices in the US are notoriously high, and even Medicare is not allowed to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices. It would be instructive to compare our situation with single payer systems -- I would bet that the medications are cheaper and widely available.
2
Our whole philosophy of health care needs serious rethinking. At present the idea of extending the length of life is given too much emphasis while quality of life and economic realities take a back seat. The for profit insurance, drug, hospital and nursing home industries create and preserve a system that is mostly cruel and unsustainable. I would prefer a system that spends less on treating disease and more on the quality of a life that may be shorter but fuller and happier.
5
Statins can destroy muscle.
25% of patients report muscle pain while on statins.
Studies say statins do not cause muscle pain.
It is most likely that the studies are incompetent and/or corrupt.
It would be far from the fist time.
25% of patients report muscle pain while on statins.
Studies say statins do not cause muscle pain.
It is most likely that the studies are incompetent and/or corrupt.
It would be far from the fist time.
6
The whole idea that high cholesterol is what causes heart attacks has been called into question. Personally, from all of the papers and research that I've been reading over the past several years, I believe the problem is inflammation, not cholesterol. A drug like Vascepa, which is a highly purified Omega-3 consisting of 96% EPA and no DHA, which has been shown to lower inflammation as well as trigs and which has a side effect similar to placebo, is a better alternative. However Statins are a multi-multi billion dollar business and Vascepa is marketed by a small bio-tech Irish firm which so far, has been struggling to get it's message out there. Amarin, the company that markets Vascepa (which BTW is approved by the FDA) has been highly mistreated by the FDA. I suggest anyone interested should take a look at the epadruginitiative.com
6
While there has been a connection between high cholestreol and heart disease, it is not an absolute rule. High cholesterol is a family trait, and yet I have many relatives with high levels who have lived well into their 80s and 90s. None of them took cholestrerol lowering medication.
2
Why is the cost of the new medicine so obscene? That's the real question. Complaints about statins are real. To get the leg pains to go away, all I had to do is stop taking statins.
2
Red Yeast Rice
My husband has taken it for years on the advice of his doctor and it works just fine and is cheap ( the horror of the drug companies)
A few years ago my cardiologist suggested I take a statin. Mind you they consider anything over 150 a threatening number. I said I won't take a statin. I will take Red Yeast Rice. My cardiologist said surprisingly- that is what we take here. My internist said the same thing.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/red-yeast-rice/background/hr...
My husband has taken it for years on the advice of his doctor and it works just fine and is cheap ( the horror of the drug companies)
A few years ago my cardiologist suggested I take a statin. Mind you they consider anything over 150 a threatening number. I said I won't take a statin. I will take Red Yeast Rice. My cardiologist said surprisingly- that is what we take here. My internist said the same thing.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/red-yeast-rice/background/hr...
2
What a great opportunity, and the article doesn't even broach the topic. For the majority of patients with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the cause of the disease is the american culture/lifestyle. Diets based largely on plants have been shown to lower cholesterol, blood sugar, body fat and decrease the manifestations of the chronic lifestyle diseases that are the result of the "american diet". $14,000 a year would serve as good motivation to make the changes in your diet and lifestyle that would make cholesterol lowering drugs unnecessary. It is great that this new medication exists. The important question is who should bear responsibility for its cost? How we answer that question will help determine the type of health care system that we create.
1
Do the prices of these drugs reflect the actual cost to produce, somehow factoring in the R&D to produce them? And not, say, a belief that the companies which invented & patented them have a right to survive at any cost so that they can keep researching and testing new drugs, for other medical problems - long after the R&D and manufacturing costs for these specific drugs have been recouped, and shareholders have achieved a decent payback on their investment? The explanation for the high margins from the manufacturers is typically that. But I have read many a horror story of patent-protected drugs generating revenues which translate to huge profits, and could have paid for a battalion of research chemists & doctors. Especially when pharma buys off potential generic vendors, and games the formula to extend a patent.
It is important the companies make a profit for their investors and fund future R&D - to an extent. But a patent protection should not be the equivalent of legally sanctioned armed robbery.
We need to revise our patent laws, to stop patent trolling, and the obscene durations afforded. This applies in a wide range of endeavor, not just pharma
Also, the government needs to invest more in university-based research, whose output is not subject to the same abuses. (Patents still apply, but usually with much less abuse.)
It is important the companies make a profit for their investors and fund future R&D - to an extent. But a patent protection should not be the equivalent of legally sanctioned armed robbery.
We need to revise our patent laws, to stop patent trolling, and the obscene durations afforded. This applies in a wide range of endeavor, not just pharma
Also, the government needs to invest more in university-based research, whose output is not subject to the same abuses. (Patents still apply, but usually with much less abuse.)
Leaving aside the efficacy and side effects problems, statins often solve for so many people a problem they do not have. Serum cholesterol levels are arbitrarily mandated much lower than necessary,
6
In the mid-1980's our clinical research group was one of 5 in the country invited by Merck to conduct double-blind, Phase 2 trials of their first statin. Each of the groups had many years of experience treating patients with high lipids. Each group enrolled 20 patients who had familial hypercholesterolemia.The statin was clearly a game-changer. We continued on with a Phase 3 trial, for a total of 44 patients. All were allowed to continue the drug when the trials ended. Over several months, about one-third of the patients complained of weight gain, no matter how careful they were with their diet. Since our patients were ones we had followed for years, we were able to document their weights before going on a statin. Pre-statin weight gains were slow, but in the year they first went on the statin, their weights increased more sharply. We were able to show that the difference was statistically significant, but Merck refused to believe that the sharper increase in weight was drug-related. Despite several tries, we were never able to get the data published.
6
For those interested in the real-life suppression of critical information by the pharmaceutical -industrial complex, read what AML has written.
1
The isssue of statins and the side effects have been well documented by "real world" trials of patients . It was not that long ago that the FDA pushed for the "fast track" of drugs from research, to approval on to the patient. This was lobbied for by the pharmaceutical companies in the self interest of faster return of research costs and not the stated "it takes too long for patients to have access to these medications". High cholesteral and heart issues can be related to our lifestyles , additives to foods and how we "process" our foods. It can also be heredity. I have a family history of high cholesterol and strokes. I am 60 years old and I am slim by nature and have a low percentage of body fat. My Doctor prescribed different statins with the same result: muscle pain. We are now doing a "trial" of alternative approaches: Excersize consisting of 5 miles of walking per day, every other day weight lifting with one day off per week. My wife has always prepared healthy foods , I use no sugar and very little salt as seasoning. We have also added into the regimen a glass of red wine per day. In our first series of blood work after this plan there was a significant drop in the bad cholesterol . We have scheduled another series of blood tests in four months. If my progress to our goal continues, then this regimine will be lifelong. There are incredible benefits to medications but too often we do not get to the root of the problem and mask the underlying issue.
4
In talking about even "cheap" drugs that pharmaceutical companies want everyone to take, for most of their lives (even suggesting forcing it into municipal water systems), we should be very clear about science versus "science," the latter being that distorted variant of real science practiced by the drug industry in order to inflate profits without concern for anything else. Too many trustworthy practitioners of the former have risked their own careers describing the profit-first variant of the latter to be easily dismissed. Anyone faced with the decision to take statin drugs or their more expensive new alternatives should read about and research for themselves available natural nutritional support and lifestyle changes before running off this cliff with everyone else.
3
When I switched to a plant-based diet two years ago, my cholesterol went from 170-something to 132 mg/dL. (In other words, it was low to begin with, but it became insanely low.) Recently, my doctor, amazed by my cholesterol levels, remarked that I seem to naturally have low cholesterol. I said it was because of my plant-based diet. He seemed skeptical but had to agree when he compared my cholesterol history to the date I changed my diet. It's insane that so many people are being prescribed drugs that have side-effects when all they need to do is switch to a diet that is not only healthier but is also kinder to animals and the environment.
Note that a switch to an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet won't help. You have to stop eating not only meat, poultry, and fish, but also eggs and dairy. It's not so hard if you already cook at home most of the time. If you put milk in your coffee, Silk Original soy milk is a great replacement. For recipes, check out Donna Klein's "Vegan Mediterranean Kitchen" or the internet. It has never been this easy to switch to a plant-based diet.
Note that a switch to an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet won't help. You have to stop eating not only meat, poultry, and fish, but also eggs and dairy. It's not so hard if you already cook at home most of the time. If you put milk in your coffee, Silk Original soy milk is a great replacement. For recipes, check out Donna Klein's "Vegan Mediterranean Kitchen" or the internet. It has never been this easy to switch to a plant-based diet.
@H.G.:
Cholesterol is a homeostasis, and a total cholesterol of 170mg/dL is low-normal. A total cholesterol of 132 mg/dL is _abnormally low_, and increases your risk of cancer and mental illness.
Cholesterol is a homeostasis, and a total cholesterol of 170mg/dL is low-normal. A total cholesterol of 132 mg/dL is _abnormally low_, and increases your risk of cancer and mental illness.
@The Pooch:
I am able to find no studies that support your claim that a low cholesterol level increases one's risk of cancer and mental illness. Cancer can reduce one's cholesterol by affecting the functioning of the liver, but this does not mean that a low cholesterol level causes cancer. A similar statement can be made about certain mental illnesses like bipolar disorder. There is nothing to indicate that a low blood cholesterol concentration is dangerous in an otherwise healthy adult like me.
This article addresses your claim better than I can given the character limit for comments posted on the NYT:
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/cardiovascular-disease-can-choleste...
The bottom line is that my switch to a plant-based diet reduced my cholesterol from 170-something to 130-something, where it stabilized. Until we switched to a plant-based diet, my husband's cholesterol had been rising steadily and had just passed the 200 level. His cholesterol is now below 200. Our experience may be of interest to those who are trying to reduce their own cholesterol levels. Scaring people about how reducing their cholesterol by switching to a plant-based diet will give them cancer or mental illness, frankly, is irresponsible and harmful.
I am able to find no studies that support your claim that a low cholesterol level increases one's risk of cancer and mental illness. Cancer can reduce one's cholesterol by affecting the functioning of the liver, but this does not mean that a low cholesterol level causes cancer. A similar statement can be made about certain mental illnesses like bipolar disorder. There is nothing to indicate that a low blood cholesterol concentration is dangerous in an otherwise healthy adult like me.
This article addresses your claim better than I can given the character limit for comments posted on the NYT:
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/cardiovascular-disease-can-choleste...
The bottom line is that my switch to a plant-based diet reduced my cholesterol from 170-something to 130-something, where it stabilized. Until we switched to a plant-based diet, my husband's cholesterol had been rising steadily and had just passed the 200 level. His cholesterol is now below 200. Our experience may be of interest to those who are trying to reduce their own cholesterol levels. Scaring people about how reducing their cholesterol by switching to a plant-based diet will give them cancer or mental illness, frankly, is irresponsible and harmful.
By going from 170 to 132, you have probably reduced your chances of having a heart attack by 0.001%. Eat some eggs from a free-range farm. They taste really good.
2
More hype for the profits of the Pharmaceutical Industry, then what is good for mankind. These alternatives at the will just turn out to render more complication and different peculiar unwanted side effects. Of course the price will eventually come down once they become generic and mass production ensues from countries like India, and others in South East Asia.
1
As a 59 year old female with a family history of early heart disease, my cholesterol began creeping up year by year. I was put on a low dose statin drug and after 5 or 6 weeks developed horrendous headaches and a bit of a "foggy brain". My numbers on the drug dropped by over a hundred points; LDL was 61, total cholesterol was 147. Great! But I couldn't leave my house! Had a VAP test which showed that I had dense to partially dense cholesterol. Diet and exercise helped a bit, but couldn't take solve the fact that my body "made bad cholesterol". So I am now taking a drug called Welchol. Not a statin, but if it helps a bit, I am happy.
I took statins for three years and developed terrible muscle spasms. The spams stopped when I interrupted the statins. But that was not the worst. The worst was diarrhea, which became continuous after the second year of medications with statins. The diarrhea was so severe that I was hospitalized twice in Intensive Care, while some doctors suggested I probably had the beginning of an autoimmune disease. Well... I stopped the statins and the diarrhea stopped immediately. I am now taking Zetia and Red Rice Yeast for my cholesterol, which is under control. As Dr. Solomon states below, why is it that 25% of people on Dtatins complaining of side effects are not believed? Trust yourself and believe in the reactions of your own body. It's your life!
4
Are we sure that controlling cholesterol with drugs is necessary? --the science shows sugars are a huge factor. My story: I followed diet, exercise, never smoked and had no bp problems yet had a massive heart attack. My blood results were never perfect ; statins didn't help much. I finally avoided wheat and then all grains and my weight dropped significantly. My blood profile and even blood sugar improved to a point beyond perfect. I'm on a statin now... maybe I don't need to be, but I'd never want to go through the severe pain of a heart attack again. Maybe cholesterol had nothing to do with my heart attack at all!
2
Wow, I lost all my faith in the pharmaceutical company studies after reading this. Scientific studies that find no side effects that many people taking the drugs have experienced tells me these studies aren't designed to find the truth. If I take a hammer and slam it on my finger, no one would dispute that the hammer caused the pain, but if I take a multibillion dollar income producing drug, they design studies that show the finger caused the pain.
3
This whole statin business seems to be American medicine at its very worst.
1) The drive for putting everybody over 50 on statins is coming from the pharmaceutical industry, which pays for the studies, and quasi-government medical organizations that are loaded with "experts" who are effectively on drug company payrolls. This is a combination that has produced some really really bad medicine in the past.
2) This is a medicine that profoundly changes the way the body handles cholesterol, and people are being told to take this medicine FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. Seems to me the argument for that should be a lot more compelling than "it might reduce your heart attack risk, and we don't think it will increase your risk of dementia but we really don't know for sure."
Yeah, sure if you have had a heart episode or are at particularly high risk of one, the cost-benefit for statins is a no-brainer. They're great drugs for SOME PEOPLE.
It's this notion of basically adding them to the water supply that I don't buy. There is a lot of money at stake and nobody will convince me that the money doesn't play a powerful role in this.
1) The drive for putting everybody over 50 on statins is coming from the pharmaceutical industry, which pays for the studies, and quasi-government medical organizations that are loaded with "experts" who are effectively on drug company payrolls. This is a combination that has produced some really really bad medicine in the past.
2) This is a medicine that profoundly changes the way the body handles cholesterol, and people are being told to take this medicine FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. Seems to me the argument for that should be a lot more compelling than "it might reduce your heart attack risk, and we don't think it will increase your risk of dementia but we really don't know for sure."
Yeah, sure if you have had a heart episode or are at particularly high risk of one, the cost-benefit for statins is a no-brainer. They're great drugs for SOME PEOPLE.
It's this notion of basically adding them to the water supply that I don't buy. There is a lot of money at stake and nobody will convince me that the money doesn't play a powerful role in this.
28
It's not about doctors. We patients are more than complainers, as a number of comments have articulately pointed out. Drugs do have side effects that are not all trivial. Just listen to the drug ads on TV. Reminds me of that battery ad spoofing drug ads (which was quickly taken off the air, probably by the drug company buying off the battery company). The side effects got worse and worse, as they all do, ending with something like: Your heart may suddenly explode out through your chest wall and your children may be born with the head of a golden retriever.
1
I am 78 years old and have been taking statins for the past 35 years. I recently complained about the very same "aches and pains" mentioned in your article and my doctor let me take a month off from Lipitor and frankly, it didn't seem to make a noticeable difference so I was told to continue taking it because the protection from a possible heart attack was better in the long run
Last year I was treated successfully for bladder cancer and am continuing to stay cured. The radiation and chemo seriously hurt me. Although I am cured of the cancer, the chemo rocked me as did the radiation. My point is this: the cancer treatments combined with my age and the variety of medications I take to sustain my life, such as it is, are all making me very uncomfortable. I frankly ache most of the time where as I did not before the cancer was cured.
I think there are too many factors to make a serious judgment about causes with any true accuracy so I plod along, resting more often, and popping a couple of Ibuprofens when I hurt too badly.
I have concluded that my greatest problem is age and all the variety of problems that come along with it. I'll take my meds and live with it although not totally happy.
Last year I was treated successfully for bladder cancer and am continuing to stay cured. The radiation and chemo seriously hurt me. Although I am cured of the cancer, the chemo rocked me as did the radiation. My point is this: the cancer treatments combined with my age and the variety of medications I take to sustain my life, such as it is, are all making me very uncomfortable. I frankly ache most of the time where as I did not before the cancer was cured.
I think there are too many factors to make a serious judgment about causes with any true accuracy so I plod along, resting more often, and popping a couple of Ibuprofens when I hurt too badly.
I have concluded that my greatest problem is age and all the variety of problems that come along with it. I'll take my meds and live with it although not totally happy.
37
I think this article is misleading. The pain I suffered was NOT muscle aches and pains....I was having SEVERE cramps.....first in my feet, to the point where my toes were yanked up to a 90 degree angle from where they should have been. The pain was excruciating. I went to my doctor and was tested for every possible cause except the (low dose) statin I was taking. He was stumped. The cramps got worse, even after upping my intake of magnesium and potassium to the point where, one afternoon the cramps came on while I was sitting still and traveled all the way up my legs to the point where I could barely stand. I was able to walk them off after several hours and multiple doses of leg cramp medication, taken with tonic water with quinine. That night I skipped my dose of Mevacor and I haven't taken it since. Within 2 weeks I no longer had ANY cramps. I am taking Niacin and natural treatments for lowering cholesterol. I will have my blood drawn again later in September. If my numbers are still high, I will continue to alter my diet. I will NOT take statins again....ever.
1
I am 76 and will be on no meds. I take an ativan if I have troublr sleeping. That's it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! See a naturopathic doc. Mine is an internist, no meds for me.
1
Gee, mankind has survived for thousands of years without statins, and suddenly many of us cannot live without them. What does this say about us? That our diet has degenerated to the point where we get sick at an unprecedented rate? That we would rather take chemicals than to go back to eating as our bodies need us to? That big pharma has once again convinced us that drugs are the answer? Like lambs to the slaughter, we sign up, one by one. As for me and my family, we are headed out to the garden, and what we cannot grow, we are buying from the local farmer. Heading towards no retirement, and no prescriptions-THAT is what Mother Nature intended.
6
What it means is that we're eating way more animal products than our bodies can handle. Surprise, surprise: our ancestors were not eating meat, poultry, fish, eggs, and dairy three times a day. When we don't stuff our bodies with cholesterol (which exists only in animal products), our bodies produce just enough cholesterol to keep us healthy.
Well for 1000 of years we weren't living as long as we do now and didn't have as many people over 60.
@H.G.:
Our ancestors did not eat three meals a day, true, but they ate plenty of meat, fish, eggs, and shellfish. They depended on these foods for survival and nutrition. If our bodies produce enough cholesterol naturally, then it shouldn't (and it doesn't) matter if we ingest a little more or a little less in our diets.
Our ancestors did not eat three meals a day, true, but they ate plenty of meat, fish, eggs, and shellfish. They depended on these foods for survival and nutrition. If our bodies produce enough cholesterol naturally, then it shouldn't (and it doesn't) matter if we ingest a little more or a little less in our diets.
1
Statins like all pharmaceuticals are dangerous for the most part.
The cholesterol theory is a scam.
Read The Cholesterol Myth by J. Boden is you wish to further your knowledge.
The cholesterol theory is a scam.
Read The Cholesterol Myth by J. Boden is you wish to further your knowledge.
3
Drugs producers have the money to have “science” prove anything they want. If customers complaint, they say that they just don't know what they are complaining about.
8
I have been taking a middle dose of statins for several years without side effects. My LDL has gone down, but the real reason for my improved profile (I had an A-fib 5 years ago; my dad died of heart disease at 69) is the commitment of consistent vigorous exercise in my weekly routine, including swimming laps, gym work and golf. In 5 years, without "dieting", I've lost 60 pounds of fat, replacing it with muscle. I now have an actual masculine "shape" to my torso and legs, as opposed to the "Jabba the Hut" profile I made before my heart event. My bp was checked yesterday; it was the lowest in memory, virtually textbook normal, after years of too high readings. Again, the exercise (and modified diet) is the cause of that improvement. Do I have some aches? Yes, from age-related stuff. Do I blame the statins, especially when I take 5 other meds daily? Absurd. I live in a retirement community, surrounded by legions of obese fellow seniors, so many obviously sedentary that I feel like I and a mere handful of other dedicated residents own the large, well-equipped, free gym. A significant cohort of older Americans are for the most part sadly, pathetically inert, many still smoking like chimneys, drinking excessively, stuffing their faces with all manner of unhealthy food, spending their days glued to the TV. What better scapegoat for their aches and pains than some (actually effective) drug? Self-delusion: the American way.
7
Idiotic to blame every ache on a statin. It is not borne up by research. The "nocebo" effect is real and it is especially strong in the age of the internet.
7
Bottom line: The drug companies will lie and the FDA will swear to it. Statins do NOT prevent heart attacks, they DO make some people sick(er). As many here have said, pay attention to diet and less attention to those with a financial interest in getting you hooked on a drug.
Stay well.
Stay well.
4
Having taken Simvistatin for a number of years & reaching high dosage. I developed Rhab-D as evidenced by a CK result of 11,880. I guess I am one of the 1 in 10,000. I stopped the Simvistatin and my CK was normal within a month.
3
Most everyone I know has now developed a high degree of distrust in the Pharmaceutical and that distrust is creeping into the Doctors office as well. I have heard more than people refer to their Dr's as drug pushers as opposed to the trusted professional that evaluates your health and creates protocols that match the problem. My Dr. immediately promoted statins without ever really looking at my overall health. My cholesterol was at the top margin of the normal zone hence the advice. When I asked had the normal range changed I was informed it had been lowered, I asked by who? I'm guessing the studies funded by the drug manufacturers. The money incentive in this industry is insane has far outweighed the social benefits, buyer beware.
10
The problem with statistics is it only applies to the group, and not to the individual. Or put another way, if a side effect occurs only once in a 1000 times, but if it happens to you, it happens 100 percent of the time.
Doctors and patients don't understand this. Nor do they, especially damning to doctors, bother to read or understand the dosage and side effect information that is readily available. And some of the side effects seem understated, underreported or skewed.
I had an "unusual" reaction to Lipitor, radically increased appetite. I was hungry all the time, even after eating what should have been a satisfying meal. Conferring with my doctor, he'd never heard of it, but a Google search showed the phrase auto filling. Needless to say, I quickly got off Lipitor and the symptoms went away. Some easy research showed that this side effect, while infrequent, was shown on some side effect lists but not others.
But, people reported gaining 30 or more pounds on Lipitor when their doctors stated this was just an excuse to cover their overeating. I don't know which seems sadder, the doctors not trusting their patients or doing a modicum of research or the patients sticking with a drug that was clearly adversely affecting them just on the doctor's say so.
Doctors and patients don't understand this. Nor do they, especially damning to doctors, bother to read or understand the dosage and side effect information that is readily available. And some of the side effects seem understated, underreported or skewed.
I had an "unusual" reaction to Lipitor, radically increased appetite. I was hungry all the time, even after eating what should have been a satisfying meal. Conferring with my doctor, he'd never heard of it, but a Google search showed the phrase auto filling. Needless to say, I quickly got off Lipitor and the symptoms went away. Some easy research showed that this side effect, while infrequent, was shown on some side effect lists but not others.
But, people reported gaining 30 or more pounds on Lipitor when their doctors stated this was just an excuse to cover their overeating. I don't know which seems sadder, the doctors not trusting their patients or doing a modicum of research or the patients sticking with a drug that was clearly adversely affecting them just on the doctor's say so.
12
Listen to the people, not big pharma.Isnt that data if 25 percent and i sure you could double that number are complaining about side effects. There are problems with statins. Furthermore, by lowering ldl to such an unnatural level of 70, does that cause more problems that you would not ordinarily have i.e. cancer diabetes etc.
2
The issue this article does not bring up is how much lowering your cholesterol numbers actually reduces your risk of heart disease. All original tests were preformed on male lab animals, and all clinical trials up to now on men only. Interesting that this article highlights a woman with multiple health issues. I have yet to read evidence that statins are proven to reduce heart attacks in women, and the numbers on men are not as impressive as you might think. Yes if you have high cholesterol, statins will lower it. The question still remains, will they prevent you from heart disease.
20
I don't know who does these studies. Possibly Big Pharma. I have only met one person who has not complained of the side effects of the statins. All of them and myself included stopped taking them and by and large most of the side effects have gone away. Unfortunately some of them will never disappear. It is amazing to me that the AMA would come out and say everyone should take them. Not only do they say that but then they say that taking Red Rice Yeast is no different than taking the statins becasue the ingredient is the same. If that is so then why are there are 12 or more types. In my case, my total cholesterol was always from 190 to 225. My HDL was always high. The Dr's want to drive the total cholesterol down and get a low total number. Complaints about side effects only mean they try a different one that has the same side effects. I tried three and had problems with each one. My total cholesterol went down to 160. I quit the statins and my last check up showed total cholesterol to be 191 and I had been off them for two years and feeling better. Also, all the cardiac test showed no appreciable build up of plaque anywhere and I am 69.
1
We don't need a pharma/medical complex to continue to "discover" drugs that the rest of us "need" to take for our entire lives. That is capitalist medicine continuing to "look in all the wrong places". What we do need is a medical profession dedicated to finding ways to fix the causes of these "diseases", rather than treating the symptoms. If, indeed, high cholesterol in general, or high LDL's in particular is a problem for some folks, how can this be cured WITHOUT medication? We can do better across the board when we start asking the right questions, instead of making lucrative "industries" out of human illnesses.
8
Right on! Many of the smartest, most objective scientists I know are aware of the solution but are unable to communicate it over the din and dollars of entrenched vested interests: . "Let food be your medicine."
https://vimeo.com/135532688
https://vimeo.com/135532688
Statins have a positive life transforming effect for the vast majority who take them. And yes, a small minority will have bad side effects and who should be taken off immediately.
However, Not taking statins when you are at risk is akin to not vaccinating your childer because of "what you read on the Internet."
It is science denial at its worst.
However, Not taking statins when you are at risk is akin to not vaccinating your childer because of "what you read on the Internet."
It is science denial at its worst.
6
No, it's nothing like not vaccinating your children.
1
How is lowering cholesterol from 220 to 180 "life transforming?" Do you think a healthy person who is the right weight, exercises, and has no family history of heart disease, is any better off with lower cholesterol.
2
@RS:
The real science (not funded by drug companies) shows that the only group who benefits from statins are middle-aged men with previous history of heart disease. Even in this group, the chance of benefit is low and the chance of serious side effects is high. In all other groups (women, the elderly, men w/o history of heart disease) there is no measurable benefit while the chance of serious side effects remains the same.
http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-with-know...
http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-without-p...
The real science (not funded by drug companies) shows that the only group who benefits from statins are middle-aged men with previous history of heart disease. Even in this group, the chance of benefit is low and the chance of serious side effects is high. In all other groups (women, the elderly, men w/o history of heart disease) there is no measurable benefit while the chance of serious side effects remains the same.
http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-with-know...
http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-without-p...
"High cholesterol" is not a disease, although most doctors treat it like one, and this has been very profitable for the pharma industry. High cholesterol is a marker for future heart disease, and it's not even a very good or reliable predictor. Better predictors of heart disease would be low HDL-C, high triglycerides, and high LDL-P, all of which are caused the modern diet high in flours, and sugars. For most people, blood lipid profiles will improve upon eating a low(er) carb, high(er) fat diet, without the nasty statin side-effects, but that wouldn't be nearly as profitable for the pharma industry.
10
One thing that the pharmaceutical industry has done exceptionally well is sell us the bill of goods that cholesterol is dangerous. Not so and never will be. It's the building block of our hormones, hey maybe we'll all be on hormone therapy later which will make the drug industry happy again.
Our doctors have been telling us that fat is bad especially saturated, not true. Because of this misleading information obesity rates and heart disease have skyrocketed. Hey but don't worry a new drug will be coming soon to cure whatever problem they caused before.
Our doctors have been telling us that fat is bad especially saturated, not true. Because of this misleading information obesity rates and heart disease have skyrocketed. Hey but don't worry a new drug will be coming soon to cure whatever problem they caused before.
9
Why are we treating a symptom instead of the real problem?
Studies indicate that an elevated cholesterol level has a strong cause and effect link with the metabolism of sugar that gives rise to inflammation resulting in a cholesterol problem (which the tendency to develop diabetes in some would confirm: cholesterol is the body's response to sugar.)
Oh, right. There's no money to be made trying to get people to lower their consumption of sugar, and much to be lost, on the contrary, by both the processed food industry as well as big pharma...
Studies indicate that an elevated cholesterol level has a strong cause and effect link with the metabolism of sugar that gives rise to inflammation resulting in a cholesterol problem (which the tendency to develop diabetes in some would confirm: cholesterol is the body's response to sugar.)
Oh, right. There's no money to be made trying to get people to lower their consumption of sugar, and much to be lost, on the contrary, by both the processed food industry as well as big pharma...
18
I was put on statins years ago for very borderline LDL levels. Within a few weeks I developed serious nocturnal leg pain which took months to totally clear up. I also take thyroid replacement, and my thyroid function was a bit low at the time. So my doctor increased my thyroid at the same time he prescribed a statin. Bad idea....I later found out that starting statins when one is hypothyroid increases the risk of side effects from the statin. If anyone elects to start taking statins, make sure your thyroid function is normal!
2
As a physician who looked closely at the data, I started taking a statin several years ago. My ldl, which wasn't bad to begin with, is down 30 % and whether due to lower cholesterol or something else statins do, my heart risk is 1/3 to 1/2 of what is was. No side effects at all and only costs $10 every 3 months. Some people will have intolerable side effects as with anything, but for those who don't I don't see a down side. Lifestyle changes can help decrease risk, but the main drivers of CV risk are age and gender which are not modifiable. But $14000 a year, that's nuts. we have to get away from the idea that anything, whatever the marginal cost is something that MUST be done.
47
Dr. You're probably CO-PAYING $10 every three months for a generic replica of a previously patented drug.. The rest of the cost --i.e.'price' -- was gouged from ALL of us (a) when we paid for the then-newly patented drug, (b) paid our Medicare and other health premiums and (c) taxes to pay for government granted research, basic research at public institutions etc.
I --and, perhaps you, too- am a beneficiary of the exorbitant over-pricing of many drugs because my pension fund owns shares in the companies that sell them. So II get a slightly better pension from the excessive profits made by selling these drugs and concurrently pay it away in higher health premiums. That is to say, even when we participate in the drug industry's exercise of price gouging, it ends up a wash for us and leaves a lot of people still needing medication they can't afford.
So I wish that in it's next report about some over-priced medication, the NYTimes would provide an itemization of it's production costs, development costs, the prospects of its salability and profit ratios etc. THEN could make some rational judgments as to whether the drug is worth paying for.
That consideration notwithstanding, I do agree that marginal benefits from ANY high priced medications are not things that MUST be done. When my cardiologist proposes another stent and more statins, I keep in mind that I don go up stairs two-at-a-time and after good, useful life, I'd hate to be remembered as a burden.
I --and, perhaps you, too- am a beneficiary of the exorbitant over-pricing of many drugs because my pension fund owns shares in the companies that sell them. So II get a slightly better pension from the excessive profits made by selling these drugs and concurrently pay it away in higher health premiums. That is to say, even when we participate in the drug industry's exercise of price gouging, it ends up a wash for us and leaves a lot of people still needing medication they can't afford.
So I wish that in it's next report about some over-priced medication, the NYTimes would provide an itemization of it's production costs, development costs, the prospects of its salability and profit ratios etc. THEN could make some rational judgments as to whether the drug is worth paying for.
That consideration notwithstanding, I do agree that marginal benefits from ANY high priced medications are not things that MUST be done. When my cardiologist proposes another stent and more statins, I keep in mind that I don go up stairs two-at-a-time and after good, useful life, I'd hate to be remembered as a burden.
"NYT Picks are a selection of comments that represent a range of views and are judged the most interesting and thoughtful"
Why the passive voice here?
This is a pro-statin comment, and the following is clear nonsense: "My ldl, which wasn't bad to begin with, is down 30 % and whether due to lower cholesterol or something else statins do, my heart risk is 1/3 to 1/2 of what is was."
1/2 of what it was based on what??
Why the passive voice here?
This is a pro-statin comment, and the following is clear nonsense: "My ldl, which wasn't bad to begin with, is down 30 % and whether due to lower cholesterol or something else statins do, my heart risk is 1/3 to 1/2 of what is was."
1/2 of what it was based on what??
1
ASC--And don't forget that thanks to Supreme Court decision (2013?) generics are not required to stay current with warnings. You can't trust the warnings on patented drugs: off-patent...well, it's even worse.
(I know, how can it be worse? But a new way, profitable of course, always seems to be found.)
(I know, how can it be worse? But a new way, profitable of course, always seems to be found.)
I simply refuse to take statins.My LDL is borderline high,my HDLs are very high from exercise and my HDL/LDL ratio is great.Statins do cause the muscle issues.These so called expert studies saying there are no muscle issues are studies done for and manipulated by the drug companies.I simply do not believe anything the drug companies say because their main incentive is profit,not health.
5
I've been on atorvastatin for years, and for the first decade or so, the leg pain was pretty uncomfortable. Then, it just quietly went away. And stayed away. It's a whole lot more comfortable now, and I still take atorvastatin.
I do think that what is called "memory problems" is more aptly termed an attention problem. It's not that one cannot recall a memory; it's that the memory was never formed in the first place. I devised a "work-around" in which I make myself pay really good attention to the important things, reinforce them carefully, and find that the "memory problem" can be dealt with that way.
I do think that what is called "memory problems" is more aptly termed an attention problem. It's not that one cannot recall a memory; it's that the memory was never formed in the first place. I devised a "work-around" in which I make myself pay really good attention to the important things, reinforce them carefully, and find that the "memory problem" can be dealt with that way.
1
I had complained to my Doctor about my lipitor, but he said it was probably more my age and condition causing the muscle aches I had. I accepted that, but circumstances led me to take myself off my daily dose temporarily. The change in the way I felt, including a deep depression I wasn't even aware I had developed, was dramatic and overnight! Muscle aches which had become my new "normal" were gone! Soreness I had developed and which wasn't healing felt better and healed within a few days. And I felt as if had walked out from under a black cloud, literally, I found myself "singing a happy tune." I am now taking a drug called "zetia" which my doctor assures me is NOT a statin. I will never willingly take a statin again.
3
Zetia alone does not prevent heart attacks. It is a poor second choice. You need a different doctor though perhaps you have the doctor you deserve
1
I have spent my entire career in the pharmaceutical industry and I have "fought" with my doctors for years over being on a statin. (I have stopped my Lipitor and will trust diet, exercise and in my case low risk factors and high family longevity.) But with all my research, here was the number that blew me away. There is a clinical trial statistic called Number Needed To Treat (NNT.) The NNT for Lipitor is 100 meaning that for 1 patient to avoid a heart attack, 100 patients must be treated. I am not joking. My doctor's response is ," well we don't want you to have a heart attack." And Big Pharma response is:" in a country of 300 million Americans, if everybody took Lipitor, we could prevent 3 million heart attacks and save the country billions of dollars blah, blah, blah. And the NNT for developing diabetes is 50 meaning for every 50 users, 1 will develop diabetes. Finally, it is your body. Read, debate and be personally accountable for the decisions made about YOUR body.
16
FDA approved two different, but similar statin-reducing meds from two different big Pharma companies in the same month? Pure coincidence or a market share war that FDA plays along with?
The best item in this article is that, while the drugs have been approved for use,
the studies on long term effects, death included, are STILL UNDERWAY and results won't be known until 2017....after who know how many people will have been taking the drugs regularly. Way to go FDA.
The best item in this article is that, while the drugs have been approved for use,
the studies on long term effects, death included, are STILL UNDERWAY and results won't be known until 2017....after who know how many people will have been taking the drugs regularly. Way to go FDA.
8
From someone who spent several years on research teams investigating the target (PCSK9) of these new drugs, monoclonal antibodies are clearly the most of effective modality for its inhibition. Unfortunately, biological products are extremely expensive relative to most other modalities. For those patients who can tolerate these drugs without allergic reactions, for example, they are likely to be very effective. The few people who have gain-of-function PCSK9 mutations are in danger of high cholesterol-related disease while those who have loss-of-function mutations appear resistant to them. This type of "genetic validation" is usually a good predictor of a good pharmacologic outcome - but keep exercising regularly and eat the right things.
11
I share my experiences with statins to assist others: I do not tolerate statins and at a young age of 40 thought I would have to use a walker to get to work. Mentioned this problem to my mother, who said she had the same issue in her 70s and no longer used statins. She also mentioned that her brother - also in his 70s - did not tolerate statins. So, our problems with this class of drugs is quite real and runs in family. Now rely on Niacin to lower LDLs with the associated flushing red skin.
By way of background, I also changed my diet in my 40s and 50s and worked out very hard for nearly 10 years, the result being very little change in LDL cholesterol levels and only slightly improved HDL cholesterol levels.
Bottom line, be very careful with the stating class.
By way of background, I also changed my diet in my 40s and 50s and worked out very hard for nearly 10 years, the result being very little change in LDL cholesterol levels and only slightly improved HDL cholesterol levels.
Bottom line, be very careful with the stating class.
3
Doctors never want to talk about nutrition, so it is not surprising that they cannot figure out why statins cause muscle pain and sleep disturbance. Do an internet search for statins and magnesium deficiency and there is a wealth of information about why this happens. There are a host of health implications from taking statins, but you will never hear this from your doctor. Be your own patient advocate and research the pharmaceuticals that you are being prescribed before you take them. At least then you will be aware of some of the side effects.
8
"You got a problem? We got a pill for that. Don't like the pill? Don't worry, we got a new pill to replace it." And so the chase goes on.
6
When lipitor went off patent the generic alternative caused huge problems for my husband. Not just muscle aches but confusion that disrupted our lives. It took awhile to figure out what the problem was but a switch to crestor solved it. He is better but not back to his old self. As I understand it the FDA licensed just one company to produce generic Lipitor , a company with past quality control issues. They eventually discovered that it was tainted in some way and found a new supplier, but the damage was done.
With this article's emphasis on the high prices of these new drugs, why does the author not mention that one cause of this expense is the fact that Medicare is prevented by law from negotiating the prices with Big Pharma? They can set the price wherever they want in the US. But Canada and other countries do negotiate these prices. So we in the US end up paying for the world's research, plus profits, on these drugs.
16
Before any drugs are prescribed, patients should be required to adapt the very low fat diet as promoted by Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn and Dr. John McDougall: no animal products, no oils of any kind, no flour products (for those with heart disease/high cholesterol already), no nuts, avocados, nor olives. What's left: grains, tubers, fruits, vegetables, legumes. No cheating. If all went on this program, the national cost for those who still needed the expensive new drugs would be very small and justifiable.
4
@Kim:
A higher fat diet, with nutrient dense animal foods, also corrects blood lipid profiles for most people. It's ditching the flours and sugars that is the key variable.
A higher fat diet, with nutrient dense animal foods, also corrects blood lipid profiles for most people. It's ditching the flours and sugars that is the key variable.
2
We tried that, but couldn't do it. Are there any statistics on the drop-out rate on that?
Seven years on statins, Over that time blood sugars increased to Type 2 Diabetes, more insidious was the fatigue and weakness and lethargy. Not until I ran out of the statins for two weeks did the realization of side effects become apparent. Blood sugar has been normal since then, no meds necessary, energy levels returned, not so weak, back to health.
Physicians at my Major Boston Hospital are reluctant to draw any correlation. I know better.
Physicians at my Major Boston Hospital are reluctant to draw any correlation. I know better.
23
As one who was bed ridden by Lipitor with 'Fibromyalgia' which turned out by stopping Lipitor against my doctor's orders, it went away.
Having cared for my mother who had 'fibromyalgia' and maybe died from it one has to wonder whether Lipitor caused it.
So they changed me to simivastin? which after 3 months caused severe depression like I never felt anywhere near before or since.
Again stopping 3 weeks later I was back to my normal self except weak leg muscles which had been very, very strong it seems by Lipitor.
Cholesterol is a main part in every cell in the body, especially our brain a drug against it just might have problems.
And talking to other older people at least 1 in 5 I've talked to have had similar problems.
This is a large serious problem if we had national medical records any other medical problems, solutions would become clear long before they reach the size to effect so many.
And again prove drug companies can not be trusted or make what we need at a reasonable cost.
Time for the gov to do this since big pharma won't be honest, decent allowing, causing many to die so they can make a deadly profit just for greed by lying , fixing trials, anything to get a patented drug on the market even though the know it'll hurt, kill people.
And repubs for not allowing the gov to bargain in drug prices stealing taxpayers money and the major cause of rising healthcare costs.
Having cared for my mother who had 'fibromyalgia' and maybe died from it one has to wonder whether Lipitor caused it.
So they changed me to simivastin? which after 3 months caused severe depression like I never felt anywhere near before or since.
Again stopping 3 weeks later I was back to my normal self except weak leg muscles which had been very, very strong it seems by Lipitor.
Cholesterol is a main part in every cell in the body, especially our brain a drug against it just might have problems.
And talking to other older people at least 1 in 5 I've talked to have had similar problems.
This is a large serious problem if we had national medical records any other medical problems, solutions would become clear long before they reach the size to effect so many.
And again prove drug companies can not be trusted or make what we need at a reasonable cost.
Time for the gov to do this since big pharma won't be honest, decent allowing, causing many to die so they can make a deadly profit just for greed by lying , fixing trials, anything to get a patented drug on the market even though the know it'll hurt, kill people.
And repubs for not allowing the gov to bargain in drug prices stealing taxpayers money and the major cause of rising healthcare costs.
7
Argh! There are multiple, legitimate studies and reports documenting that statins are associated with muscle disorders (e.g. polymyalgia rheumatica, PMR). Moreover, the benefit from lower cholesterol at the margins, say 220 to 190 or LDL from 120 to 90, is also very questionable. The louder voice is not always correct. Your article is biased and does the public a disservice.
9
Any "study" of a drug is small compared to the number of people who eventually take it. It is well known that side effects not documented in studies will appear once a medication is released for the general public. Your reporter insinuates that these 25% of patients who complain of muscle pain are either lying or malingerers. There side effects are common and uncomfortable.
9
You're supposed to take coenzyme Q-10 if you take statins. A lot of doctors won't tell you that. Statins do effect your body chemistry and that can have all kinds of effects.
I was perplexed, however, to read the quote from the woman with multiple sclerosis who thought her leg weakness was due to statins!
I was perplexed, however, to read the quote from the woman with multiple sclerosis who thought her leg weakness was due to statins!
In the study linked below, almost half of 137,000 patients admitted with coronary artery disease had LDL levels below 100. I’ve wondered why the researchers didn’t look at the Triglyceride/HDL (TG/HDL) Ratio, especially in light of the second study, linked below, which found that patients in the highest quartile of TG/HDL values were 16 times more likely to have a heart attack than the patients in the lowest quartile.
Ideally the TG/HDL Ratio (an indirect indicator of LDL particle size) should be below 2.0. Anything over 4.0 is a problem, and over 6.0 is much too high.
Note that the late Tim Russert died with a LDL level of 67 and a TG/HDL Ratio of 9.4
Lipid levels in patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease: an analysis of 136,905 hospitalizations in Get With The Guidelines.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19081406
"In a large cohort of patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease (CAD), almost half have admission LDL levels <100 mg/dL. More than half the patients have admission HDL levels <40 mg/dL, whereas <10% have HDL > or =60 mg/dL.”
Fasting Triglycerides, High-Density Lipoprotein, and Risk of Myocardial Infarction
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/96/8/2520.full
"The ratio of triglycerides to HDL was a strong predictor of myocardial infarction (RR in the highest compared with the lowest quartile=16.0; 95% CI=7.7 to 33.1; P for trend <.001)."
Ideally the TG/HDL Ratio (an indirect indicator of LDL particle size) should be below 2.0. Anything over 4.0 is a problem, and over 6.0 is much too high.
Note that the late Tim Russert died with a LDL level of 67 and a TG/HDL Ratio of 9.4
Lipid levels in patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease: an analysis of 136,905 hospitalizations in Get With The Guidelines.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19081406
"In a large cohort of patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease (CAD), almost half have admission LDL levels <100 mg/dL. More than half the patients have admission HDL levels <40 mg/dL, whereas <10% have HDL > or =60 mg/dL.”
Fasting Triglycerides, High-Density Lipoprotein, and Risk of Myocardial Infarction
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/96/8/2520.full
"The ratio of triglycerides to HDL was a strong predictor of myocardial infarction (RR in the highest compared with the lowest quartile=16.0; 95% CI=7.7 to 33.1; P for trend <.001)."
4
Jeffrey, you are 100% right. TG/HDL ratio is the very best assessment of cardiovascular risk. And what causes the high TG and low HDL to begin with? Consumption of dietary cholesterol (which, as we now know does not convert to serum cholesterol)? No. Fat consumption? No. Eating meat? No.
Only one thing causes this - and we've known this for decades, thanks to pioneers like John Yudkin - S.U.G.A.R. and excess fructose conumption. The white stuff is literally killing us (it's now in everything from soup to nuts), and a hundred years ago, when this wasn't the case, heart disease, DT2, and obesity were exceedingly rare. People remained slim their entire lives while eating lard, suet and butter, no statins needed.
Those who forget history are not just condemned to repeat it - they are now actually condemned.
Only one thing causes this - and we've known this for decades, thanks to pioneers like John Yudkin - S.U.G.A.R. and excess fructose conumption. The white stuff is literally killing us (it's now in everything from soup to nuts), and a hundred years ago, when this wasn't the case, heart disease, DT2, and obesity were exceedingly rare. People remained slim their entire lives while eating lard, suet and butter, no statins needed.
Those who forget history are not just condemned to repeat it - they are now actually condemned.
3
In the study of 137,000 patients admitted with CAD, they have separate data tables for Triglycerides and HDL, but they did not present the TG/HDL data. One can't help but wonder if it's because the researchers didn't like what the TG/HDL data show.
Given that less than 10% of the CAD patients had HDL levels above 60, one can make a pretty educated guess that the 137,000 patient data base would probably have supported the second study that I linked, which explicitly looked at the TG/HDL Ratio.
And I agree with you 100% about sugar and simple carbs.
Given that less than 10% of the CAD patients had HDL levels above 60, one can make a pretty educated guess that the 137,000 patient data base would probably have supported the second study that I linked, which explicitly looked at the TG/HDL Ratio.
And I agree with you 100% about sugar and simple carbs.
1
These clinical trials that claim statins are safe are funded by the drug companies. There is a huge bias and oftentimes people with side effects are withdrawn from the study. Statins have always been a cash cow. Now that there are generics, drug companies come out with costly alternatives. Do your research and you will find that statins really aren't that effective.
8
Well I for one had to stop taking statins. It caused itchy rashes, particularly around my neck, very painful muscular pains and contractions, and general feelings of exhaustion and weakness. Made it difficult to walk and work. No other medication seems available so I have been doing without. Mind you I am 88 and full of arthritis so guess I am lucky! I like to remain active - and alive - as long as I can as I am the sole carer of my handicapped son.
2
Sigh. Another article about treatments for high cholesterol without a mention of the root causes. There have been many human populations where ridiculously low cholesterol levels are the norm and atherosclerosis is unheard of. Why? Because they don't eat like us. Eating saturated fat raises your LDL cholesterol. If people start with low cholesterol and increase dietary cholesterol, blood cholesterol goes up (never mind what the fad diet books say). Biologically abnormal cholesterol levels, that plug up our arteries, are considered normal here. What's the solution? Eat what we primates are biologically designed to eat: a plant-based diet without dairy or processed food.
3
@Bree:
Eating saturated fat does raise total and LDL cholesterol, but it also raises HDL cholesterol, and shifts the LDL towards the beneficial size distribution. So the net effect is neutral to maybe beneficial. Cholesterol in food has no effect on blood serum cholesterol, even Ancel Keys admitted that. Us humans have been omnivores since before we were even human, eating meat/fish/eggs is part of what we are biologically adapted to eat.
Eating saturated fat does raise total and LDL cholesterol, but it also raises HDL cholesterol, and shifts the LDL towards the beneficial size distribution. So the net effect is neutral to maybe beneficial. Cholesterol in food has no effect on blood serum cholesterol, even Ancel Keys admitted that. Us humans have been omnivores since before we were even human, eating meat/fish/eggs is part of what we are biologically adapted to eat.
2
"The drugs are cheap and effective for most people, and large, rigorous clinical trials have found minimal side effects. But as many as 25 percent of those who try them complain of muscle pain."
Talk about an oxymoron. If as many as 25 percent of patients complain of muscle pain (not to mention those who complain about hazy memory and sleep problems), that is not a "minimal side effect." One cannot help but wonder how or with whom those studies were conducted. There is been such a push to sell these drugs, that now I am totally skeptical about any of them. My ob-gyn, who has hereditary high cholesterol, but is also a marathon runner, said he would never take them. That, to me, is enough advice to stay away from these pills than what any "scientific study" will state.
Talk about an oxymoron. If as many as 25 percent of patients complain of muscle pain (not to mention those who complain about hazy memory and sleep problems), that is not a "minimal side effect." One cannot help but wonder how or with whom those studies were conducted. There is been such a push to sell these drugs, that now I am totally skeptical about any of them. My ob-gyn, who has hereditary high cholesterol, but is also a marathon runner, said he would never take them. That, to me, is enough advice to stay away from these pills than what any "scientific study" will state.
9
Contributing to the persistance of adverse coronary events in the population is the fact that there are individuals without elevated LDL at high risk of coronary disease and stroke while in some people elevated LDL does not appear to lead to major accumulation of atherosclerotic plaque. One can detect individuals of both types age 50 and higher using coronary calcium scores, but these are underutilized, in part because of vigorous, misguided efforts by insurers to suppress use of cardiac CT imaging. If calcium scores were used more widely to identify those at genuinely high risk of heart attack and stroke, use of statins could be targeted more effectively.
2
It is stunning that dietary changes and exercise - well documented to prevent and reverse heart and many other chronic diseases - aren't first and foremost in cardiologists' recommendations to patients. Note the profound successes of Drs. Caldwell Esselstyn Jr. and Dean Ornish. Plant-based, low-fat diets significantly reduce systemic inflammation and oxidative stress that underlie the epidemic of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, many autoimmune conditions etc. that plague societies consuming the standard American fare of high animal protein, fats and processed foods. Statins and this new class of drugs to lower cholesterol may still be necessary in acute cases, but dietary protocols, which offer high rates of success at minimal cost and no side effects, surely must be the first line of defense.
2
Except this is not true in every case. I consistently test high cholesterol and consider I eat a fanatically correct diet. After again not having a great blood result this year I went on a three month diet to see if I could change my levels without drugs. Guess what? It didn't.
For three months I ate NO bread, rice, potato or pasta. This was in addition to the fact I already only eat poultry and fish and no dairy. No candy, no fried, ect. I lost 20 pounds and I only started as being 165, at 5 feet nine inches. I didn't need to lose weight.
So here I am. Skinny at 145 and high cholesterol. Go figure.
For three months I ate NO bread, rice, potato or pasta. This was in addition to the fact I already only eat poultry and fish and no dairy. No candy, no fried, ect. I lost 20 pounds and I only started as being 165, at 5 feet nine inches. I didn't need to lose weight.
So here I am. Skinny at 145 and high cholesterol. Go figure.
1
@Cathy Katin-Grazzini:
Eating a higher fat diet with nutrient dense animal foods will also reduce inflammation and correct blood lipid profiles for most people. It's the sugars, flours, and refined seed oils that do the damage.
Eating a higher fat diet with nutrient dense animal foods will also reduce inflammation and correct blood lipid profiles for most people. It's the sugars, flours, and refined seed oils that do the damage.
1
This year McDonald's announced the reduction of the number of its restaurants across the country. And i was really glad to hear that. Cause eating fatty food containing cholesterol kills your рheart and hamper proper blood circulation. But food giants like McDonald's hardly care about it.
I did not believe the statin story, until I missed a day's dose and the time on my standard walk improved from 45 to 35 minutes. I then tried a half dose, then a half dose every other day, then reverted to a full dose - and the effect was real. So we tried another, and then a third - and that was so disastrous I couldn't descend a flight of steps without hanging on to the rail and going down sideways. My wife thought I had had a stroke. However, tests for creatinine kinease showed only mildly elevated levels. A fourth anticholesterolic from a completely different class, worked well at half the recommended dose. With a reasonable diet and that simple drug, cholesterol levels are fully contained, and the cost is about twice that of the statins.
The other statin problem is the grapefruit effect, and my walk test proved that was very very real. Don't do statins and grapefruit!
The other statin problem is the grapefruit effect, and my walk test proved that was very very real. Don't do statins and grapefruit!
26
Incredible posts to this article--bottom line is statins suck. Our docs make their pharmaceutical reps happy.
A few years ago I experimented, with my doctor's blessing, stopping the statin. After three months, my cholesterol numbers doubled which was scary. The leg cramps did stop, however. The mental fogginess only barely lifted so maybe that's age not statin. Frankly, I don't know what else to do. I went back on the statin, but now I have hip and ankle pain. Is that the statin? I just don't know.
My wife lost 40 pounds on weight watchers and lowered her cholesterol by 60 points. I do believe diet and exercise done with commitment and discipline are the answer to so many of our bodies health problems. We need to be honest about eating good oils, like olive oil, and whole grains and fruits and vegetables and treat our bodies with respect and care and our health will improve greatly. My wife tried statins and could not tolerate them either.
1
The use of these drugs, both of which are human monoclonal antibodies (human MAbs), will likely provide important information on the importance of reducing LDL and on the long term effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies. Statins have other major physiological effects beside reducing LDL, most notably increasing inflammation. By reducing LDL in a very different manner, i.e., with MAbs, the results have the potential of testing whether reducing LDL is really how statins reduce cardiac events.
One of the problems of longterm treatment with monoclonal antibodies is that patients develop antibodies against the MAb that then inhibit the action of the MAb. In the case of the human monoclonal antibody, Humira, ~25% of the patients are making anti-Huumira antibodies after a year's treatment. And Humira suppresses some aspects of the immune system and is usually taken in conjunction with methotrexate, also an immunosuppressant. By contrast, patients taking the LDL-specific MAbs will probably not be immunosuppressed, and so the fraction of such patients taking the LDL-depressing MAbs might be substantially higher than 25%. The fraction of such patients might be so high as to compromise the longterm trial that is actually needed to test wether reducing LDL levels with the MAbs reduces cardiac events.
So -- is the use of these MAbs in treating cardiac disease still in the experimental stage, and if so, should not the drugs be made available at a vastly reduced cost?
One of the problems of longterm treatment with monoclonal antibodies is that patients develop antibodies against the MAb that then inhibit the action of the MAb. In the case of the human monoclonal antibody, Humira, ~25% of the patients are making anti-Huumira antibodies after a year's treatment. And Humira suppresses some aspects of the immune system and is usually taken in conjunction with methotrexate, also an immunosuppressant. By contrast, patients taking the LDL-specific MAbs will probably not be immunosuppressed, and so the fraction of such patients taking the LDL-depressing MAbs might be substantially higher than 25%. The fraction of such patients might be so high as to compromise the longterm trial that is actually needed to test wether reducing LDL levels with the MAbs reduces cardiac events.
So -- is the use of these MAbs in treating cardiac disease still in the experimental stage, and if so, should not the drugs be made available at a vastly reduced cost?
What an insulting article!
I was prescribed a statin to lower cholesterol and had no knowledge of the possible side effects. I experienced general weakness and severe leg pain that made sleep impossible. I sought treatment for the muscle pain and that's when I learned it was a possible side effect of the statin. I eventually gave up the statin. My doctor was concerned but did not 'fire' me. He encouraged me to continue watching my diet and losing weight, which is slowly bringing my cholesterol level down.
Recently I had to change doctors and chose a very young practitioner. I sheepishly told him that I was not compliant in taking the statin and why. He was not interested in trying a new one but urged me to continue my diet and weight loss efforts. Although I do have a family history of high cholesterol I do not have a family history of heart disease but of cancer. My new doctor finds that significant. He referred me to a cardiologist who found no evidence of heart disease or blockages. We are keeping a watchful eye on my cholesterol levels.
I am so relieved to no longer feel guilty for not tolerating the statin well. I felt the I had failed the statin, not that it had failed me.
Non-compliance may frustrate a doctor, but it's important to understand why a patient refuses certain treatments.
I am glad that I am not under the care of a doctor who does not believe me nor considers my experience because some study suggests that I am making up my symptoms!
I was prescribed a statin to lower cholesterol and had no knowledge of the possible side effects. I experienced general weakness and severe leg pain that made sleep impossible. I sought treatment for the muscle pain and that's when I learned it was a possible side effect of the statin. I eventually gave up the statin. My doctor was concerned but did not 'fire' me. He encouraged me to continue watching my diet and losing weight, which is slowly bringing my cholesterol level down.
Recently I had to change doctors and chose a very young practitioner. I sheepishly told him that I was not compliant in taking the statin and why. He was not interested in trying a new one but urged me to continue my diet and weight loss efforts. Although I do have a family history of high cholesterol I do not have a family history of heart disease but of cancer. My new doctor finds that significant. He referred me to a cardiologist who found no evidence of heart disease or blockages. We are keeping a watchful eye on my cholesterol levels.
I am so relieved to no longer feel guilty for not tolerating the statin well. I felt the I had failed the statin, not that it had failed me.
Non-compliance may frustrate a doctor, but it's important to understand why a patient refuses certain treatments.
I am glad that I am not under the care of a doctor who does not believe me nor considers my experience because some study suggests that I am making up my symptoms!
6
Gina, you did not once mention in your article that research has never shown statins to be effective in lowering the death rate except for men who have had heart disease. And in those cases it might be the anti-inflammatory properties of statins that yield some benefit. And you did not even mention that many doctors now believe that cholesterol levels in the blood do not matter for most people.
8
I have myotonic muscular dystrophy so I'm not going near statins. I already have high CPKs and I don't need them climbing higher.
Re the expense of the new drugs: Given what the govt. has given to big pharma, the price of these new drugs should be capped by the FDA or Congressional Action (probably impossible given the current political climate). I very well remember that Burroughs Welcome was selling AZT for a fortune even though they did not fabricate the drug; the drug was invented by a scientist, on the govt. payroll, and the drug was really the property of the American people. Half of these drugs are the result of investments made by the US govt. and gargantuan corporate entities should not be able to charge prices that amount to a death tax
Re the expense of the new drugs: Given what the govt. has given to big pharma, the price of these new drugs should be capped by the FDA or Congressional Action (probably impossible given the current political climate). I very well remember that Burroughs Welcome was selling AZT for a fortune even though they did not fabricate the drug; the drug was invented by a scientist, on the govt. payroll, and the drug was really the property of the American people. Half of these drugs are the result of investments made by the US govt. and gargantuan corporate entities should not be able to charge prices that amount to a death tax
2
Big Pharma must love this article. It promotes a great new cholesterol drug revenue stream while reinforcing that statins don't have side effects. The wealthy can get the best and statins for the rest.
2
I began taking a statin drug and I felt as if every cell in my body rebelled. The Dr. switched me to Niaspan and after 1.5 years I noticed severe muscle weakness in my face and arms (what was it doing to my heart). I asked the Dr. what percent of patients could not take statins. His response was 35%.
2
This article implies that people complaining about side effects from statins are simply imagining them. But drug companies are loathe to disclose these effects. I have suffered irreversible kidney damage from Crestor. When the drug was first introduced, my Nephrologist informed me, there was a warning about this admittedly rare effect, but the warning was removed after a few years because it was rare and mostly affected older women. I didn't fabricate my kidney disease and the causal link has been demonstrated by a return to somewhat less impaired kidney function when I stopped taking Crestor. I've since tried a different statin but experienced severe muscle pain in my back and so have stopped that statin also. Patients don't lie when their health is at risk. Drug companies do --or at least minimize the complaints -- when their profits are threatened by acknowledging the side effects.
6
Elevated cholesterol is not a disease, and statins are not a cure (in fact they should not be prescribed to otherwise healthy people--they have no impact on mortality and do have side effects. All drugs have side effects). The medical industry would like its customers to thing otherwise, and obviously would be willing to prescribe a much more expensive, less time-tested, non-cure for a non-disease. So much so that they aggressively recruit doctors to do so.
There are very obvious reasons why Americans pay MUCH more for health care than all other countries, and achieve worse results than most. We grossly over-fund research, creating diseases that are not actually diseases, then grant long-term monopolies to drug companies to treat these non-diseases. We educate too few doctors and pay them too much, and don't take real threats like medical errors and hospital infections seriously enough.
There are very obvious reasons why Americans pay MUCH more for health care than all other countries, and achieve worse results than most. We grossly over-fund research, creating diseases that are not actually diseases, then grant long-term monopolies to drug companies to treat these non-diseases. We educate too few doctors and pay them too much, and don't take real threats like medical errors and hospital infections seriously enough.
149
I recently read that hospitals are the third leading cause of death in the US.
Although elevated cholesterol, as you say, is not a disease in and of itself, cardiovascular disease most certainly is, and your comment that statins have no impact on mortality, particularly in those with pre-existing CVD, is blatantly and indisputably false. Reducing cholesterol - whether via diet, exercise, statins, or a combination of the three - results in a decreased risk of cardiovascular disease and death. Study after study, involving tens of thousands of patients, have borne out this fact. To say otherwise is dangerous to the health of those reading it.
As an aside, I agree that medical errors are not taken seriously enough.
As an aside, I agree that medical errors are not taken seriously enough.
1
When I was developing diagnostic measurements in the 70s, including methods to determins cholsterol, the blood levels considered normal ranged between 250 and 300. Along came the fibrates and the normal values got lower. When the statins arrived the values got down again, the more powerful the compounds the lower the values. In essence doctors treat a blood parameter, which we are able to determine, rather than the patient. It's high time the medical profession starts again to think about the basic principle: Don't do any harm.
Does anyone find it odd that two competing companies are charging almost exactly the same amount for the medication - $14,600 versus $14,100 pa? Barely more than a 3% difference. Since they are the only suppliers there's not much room for the invisible hand to work its magic. I wonder if they talk to each other. I wonder if they will take turns at being the "cheapest". I wonder if a good case could be made for government interference in the workings of the "free" market?
2
The thing that gets me about statin meds and cholesterol levels is that before Big Pharma came up with these different meds for cholesterol, the average reading for normal cholesterol was 250. I'm just amazed that Dr.'s, have altered the number to 200 just for a company to mix some chemicals together and make a profit.
5
Remove meat from the diet, then regulate drug cost as they are out of control and no one should pay these rediculous prices.
1
I realize not all cholesterol problems are improved by diet and exercise, but to catch the ones that are would seem like a significant benefit at low cost. I suggest that health insurance pay for wellness programs that will help people lose weight and exercise. When you are older or you suffer from arthritis or back pain, etc., getting into shape is not as easy as it is for young, healthy people. It's best to be monitored, so you don't make things worse. A program in my area costs about $500 a year. Still, I suppose for most cases, it's cheaper to the insurers to pay for statins.
@Mary:
It's also possible that doctors are not prescribing the right kinds of diet to improve blood lipid profiles, which would explain the apparent ineffectiveness of diet for some people.
It's also possible that doctors are not prescribing the right kinds of diet to improve blood lipid profiles, which would explain the apparent ineffectiveness of diet for some people.
To John O and others who smuggly assume that cholesterol issues are self-induced by a failure to eat right and exercise: WRONG!
While the subject is complex and diet/exercise may play a role, there is a large hereditary component to cholesterol levels. Many of us, myself included, are slender, eat 'right,' and exercise regularly, but still need a statin. I was fortunate enough to have only marginally high numbers, though elevated above the desired, but no matter what I did they did not budge with behavior alone.
If you are lucky enough not to have this issue, good for you, but stop with the judgment of those who do.
While the subject is complex and diet/exercise may play a role, there is a large hereditary component to cholesterol levels. Many of us, myself included, are slender, eat 'right,' and exercise regularly, but still need a statin. I was fortunate enough to have only marginally high numbers, though elevated above the desired, but no matter what I did they did not budge with behavior alone.
If you are lucky enough not to have this issue, good for you, but stop with the judgment of those who do.
31
Following is an excerpt from another NYT article, and as noted in a separate comment, a large study found that post-menopausal women on statins were almost 50% more likely to develop Type 2 diabetes that post-menopausal women not on statins.
NYT: A New Women’s Issue: Statins
By Roni Caryn Rabin
May 5, 2014
Excerpt:
“The data are underwhelming, to say the least,” said Dr. Barbara Roberts, author of “The Truth About Statins: Risks and Alternatives to Cholesterol- Lowering Drugs” and an associate professor of medicine at Brown University. “Women who are healthy derive no benefit from statins, and even those women who have established heart disease derive only half the benefit men do.”
NYT: A New Women’s Issue: Statins
By Roni Caryn Rabin
May 5, 2014
Excerpt:
“The data are underwhelming, to say the least,” said Dr. Barbara Roberts, author of “The Truth About Statins: Risks and Alternatives to Cholesterol- Lowering Drugs” and an associate professor of medicine at Brown University. “Women who are healthy derive no benefit from statins, and even those women who have established heart disease derive only half the benefit men do.”
3
@Anne-Marie: if you are slender, physically active and otherwise healthy and your cholesterol numbers are "marginal" -- well, we should remember that the "official correct number" (under 200) is absolutely artificial and probably meaningless. It was chosen in part BECAUSE it ensured that most older American adults would require a lifetime of statin drugs.
It is very likely that your cholesterol numbers are entirely normal ... FOR YOU ... and that's why lifestyle changes did nothing to lower them.
It is very likely that your cholesterol numbers are entirely normal ... FOR YOU ... and that's why lifestyle changes did nothing to lower them.
3
John O, I wholeheartedly agree with you!!!
Using statins to treat cholesterol is like using aspirin to treat hangovers, rather than asking the patient about his alcohol consumption. Our medical/pharmaceutical industry has made a fortune by keeping the patient confused about cause and effect, treating the symptoms rather than the underlying causes of our various diseases and discomforts. The typical western diet is mostly sugar and starch in quantities the body can hardly deal with, meats produced with hormones and other chemicals, and relatively few vegetables, mostly grown with herbicides and pesticides. Naturally saturated fats, which our ancestors thrived on, have been demonized and replaced with various chemical concoctions, mostly containing yet more sugar. Several readers suggest that diet and exercise don't always work, but I believe they would certainly be the best place to start.
64
Are you seriously blaming doctors and drug companies for the way people eat?
My experience with diet as a younger man lowered my 300 cholesterol to 260. I have seen other very large and well done studies that showed that a 20% drop was possible.
1
I am at s normal weight for my height and eat a healthy diet with very little meat or carbohydrates. I exercise regularly. I agree that a healthy diet is a good start but it doesn't cure those of us who have hereditary cholesterol problems. You are mostly wrong!
1
Rigorous science is what makes provides us with the safest and most effective drugs in the world. If newer drugs are shown to safer or more effective if makes sense to provide them even if they cost more.
If there is no scientific evidence for better safety and effectiveness, we shouldn't waste our limited health care resources paying for them. The money spent will crowd out funding for proven interventions. We will all be less healthy and poorer if big pharma is able to whip up demand for its most expensive products with intense advertising and lobbying campaigns.
Indeed, big pharma and apparently even NIH are ignoring an inexpensive and effective treatment, shown in scientific studies to be effective in lowering cholesterol, the Chinese herbal medicine red rice, widely available in the US.
Scientists have been aware of the safety and efficacy of red rice for many years. It is a mystery to me why there are no large scale studies.
Here are two references to the peer reviewed scientific literature on this product. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19528562 and http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0098611
If there is no scientific evidence for better safety and effectiveness, we shouldn't waste our limited health care resources paying for them. The money spent will crowd out funding for proven interventions. We will all be less healthy and poorer if big pharma is able to whip up demand for its most expensive products with intense advertising and lobbying campaigns.
Indeed, big pharma and apparently even NIH are ignoring an inexpensive and effective treatment, shown in scientific studies to be effective in lowering cholesterol, the Chinese herbal medicine red rice, widely available in the US.
Scientists have been aware of the safety and efficacy of red rice for many years. It is a mystery to me why there are no large scale studies.
Here are two references to the peer reviewed scientific literature on this product. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19528562 and http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0098611
10
I got rhabdomyolysis taking red rice yeast. It's cheap but with the same risk of complications. And because it's sold as an herbal supplement, there isn't a comparable level of oversight regarding dosage as a pharmaceutical. Now am on half a Crestor every other day with no problems and "perfect" levels.
Red Yeast Rice contains the same active ingredient that's in Mevacor, a common statin.
The difference is that in Mevacor you get a consistent dose and consistent potency.
The difference is that in Mevacor you get a consistent dose and consistent potency.
Why no big studies on red rice? Red rice, as an alternative to statins, would cost the pharmaceutical companies billions of dollars, should it displace statins as a cholesterol control agent.
Will someone favorite a request to show independent gold standard long term research result which show that statins by reducing bad cholesterol levels actiually leads to a reduction of a first heart attack or second (for men and women, adults and children)? And then show that the reduction in heart attacks actually leads to productive, enjoyable, healthier and longer lives!
Also produce same standard research results which show the increases in risk of other diseases and/or other medical conditions.
Comparisons of results of doing nothing and all alternative treatments and different drugs, vitamins, etc.
Doctors are not educated and trained in wellness and primary prevention (except again a special type of drug called vaccination) so it is understandable they are not going to practice wellness. They are trained in medical schools, educated in medical residency programs to take medical boards and licensing examinations so they can practice MEDICINE. And most of their continuing medical education is paid for, developed or controlled by the medicine (drug) industry.
So it should not come as a surprise that medical doctors are strong when it comes to alternatives; alternatives as simple as niacin, or structured wellness principles and altenrative methodologies. Medical doctors get paid to be medical doctors. There are no adequate insurance payments for patient education and instruction. MEDICAL doctors as a rule practice medicine.
Also produce same standard research results which show the increases in risk of other diseases and/or other medical conditions.
Comparisons of results of doing nothing and all alternative treatments and different drugs, vitamins, etc.
Doctors are not educated and trained in wellness and primary prevention (except again a special type of drug called vaccination) so it is understandable they are not going to practice wellness. They are trained in medical schools, educated in medical residency programs to take medical boards and licensing examinations so they can practice MEDICINE. And most of their continuing medical education is paid for, developed or controlled by the medicine (drug) industry.
So it should not come as a surprise that medical doctors are strong when it comes to alternatives; alternatives as simple as niacin, or structured wellness principles and altenrative methodologies. Medical doctors get paid to be medical doctors. There are no adequate insurance payments for patient education and instruction. MEDICAL doctors as a rule practice medicine.
17
You won't get that, because it does not exist. Cholesterol numbers probably only matter if they are VERY high (over 275) AND in older adult men who have already had a heart attack, are obese and inactive. There is not a shred of evidence that statins produce similar results in healthy younger men and not at all in women no matter their age or status.
In fairness however: most doctors DO aggressively push things like diet & exercise ... but those don't work either, not for permanent weight reduction which is 90% of the time the goal.
In fairness however: most doctors DO aggressively push things like diet & exercise ... but those don't work either, not for permanent weight reduction which is 90% of the time the goal.
Statins raise the levels of liver enzymes outside the normal range. Does this indicate liver damage if continued for decades?
Some doctors say it doesn't. But can they be sure, until we have decades more experience?
Some doctors say it doesn't. But can they be sure, until we have decades more experience?
17
Remember when we thought aluminum cookware was the cause of Alzheimer's? The case for cholesterol is just as weak. It's just that big pharm couldn't capitalize on non-aluminum cookware like they can on anti-statin drugs. But consider this statistic: Half of all heart-attack victims have average to below average cholesterol levels. It's not even correlation-vs-causation; there isn't even a correlation between cholesterol levels and heart disease. The cases against saturated fat and salt have been effectively refuted. Now it's time to move past the cholesterol bogyman.
213
JC: The statistic you cite does not prove your point. You're saying that high cholesterol doesn't cause heart attacks. But the statistic you cite doesn't support your claim. If true, your statistic only says that all heart attacks are not caused by high cholesterol. It leaves wide open the possibility that high cholesterol causes heart attacks. Given your inability to evaluate data, I would advise readers to beware of your other claims.
2
Yes, that's absolutely true, it's more of a U-shaped curve with super high or super low total cholesterol being problematic. There are much better metrics of heart attack risk than total cholesterol. However, statins *have* been shown to save lives in high risk individuals so I wouldn't write them off. We know they work. It just doesn't seem to be the cholesterol lowering that does it.
2
And all we need to do is to back up these claims with proof. Instead of the feel-good logic of the Luddites.
1
I know quite a few Mayo docs and nurses working into their later years. Commonality? Near vegetarian diet. Just sayin'....
10
And I have a family full of healthy seniors who were lively, in some cases, well into their 90s--one into her hundreds, although her mind was not as healthy as her body--and would never have considered a vegetarian or near-vegetarian diet if you paid them. Obviously, all we're doing here is matching anecdotal evidence, and neither of our examples mean much in the larger scheme of things.
I tried for probably 15 years, many times, to use statins. My doctors were on me to get on them and stay on them from my early 40s. Sometimes I was able to stay on them for a few months, with breaks, at times, some longer. Many I couldn't tolerate for more than a few weeks.
I could always tell when statins were in my body. Thighs, calves, sometimes my feet would ache and burn. It was creepy, unique, and unmistakable. The worst, however, was this feeling that my liver was on fire. Again, I 'tolerated' these symptoms as I tried to do the right thing to save my life and stay on the pills.
There was something else though. Almost instantly upon starting a statin, I would be in a zone, and slower to think and respond to anything. My wife would lightly berate me as she too could identify the drop off in my sharpness INSTANTLY. When I stopped taking the statin, over time those symptoms would dissipate.
All those years I, of course, casually consumed alcohol. Two years ago, I realized that close to a bottle of wine a night was both expensive and starting to slow me down. I was on a statin and had been 'tolerating' it, as reported above, on and off for a few years. So I stopped drinking entirely.
Since I quit drinking everything has changed. All of my numbers now are stellar. Triglycerides, always mysteriously high, are now perfect. And I've been on a strong statin 20-40 mg without a break for over two years with absolutely no side effects at all. Real or imagined. Nothing.
I could always tell when statins were in my body. Thighs, calves, sometimes my feet would ache and burn. It was creepy, unique, and unmistakable. The worst, however, was this feeling that my liver was on fire. Again, I 'tolerated' these symptoms as I tried to do the right thing to save my life and stay on the pills.
There was something else though. Almost instantly upon starting a statin, I would be in a zone, and slower to think and respond to anything. My wife would lightly berate me as she too could identify the drop off in my sharpness INSTANTLY. When I stopped taking the statin, over time those symptoms would dissipate.
All those years I, of course, casually consumed alcohol. Two years ago, I realized that close to a bottle of wine a night was both expensive and starting to slow me down. I was on a statin and had been 'tolerating' it, as reported above, on and off for a few years. So I stopped drinking entirely.
Since I quit drinking everything has changed. All of my numbers now are stellar. Triglycerides, always mysteriously high, are now perfect. And I've been on a strong statin 20-40 mg without a break for over two years with absolutely no side effects at all. Real or imagined. Nothing.
13
Very interesting. One should always listen to one's body. I feel crappy for the first 90 minutes after taking daily hctz, a diuretic used for hypertension. So you are attributing the bad side effects you encountered to taking statins and also consuming alchohol daily?
I wouldn't call "close to a bottle of wine a night" casual drinking. I call my one glass of wine several nights a week (6 oz. approx.) casual drinking...
Monoclonal antibody therapy possess general risks. Without the results from longer range heart attack studies, the popular press could exercise editorial standards that doesnt encourage a rush to judgement. At these risks/prices patients should come before profit, but not before safety.
6
As a retired physician, I find the obscene prices being charged for new medications by pharmaceutical companies to be not only immoral and unconscionable, but also to be essentially choosing on the basis of one's wealth and access to health insurance, whether you live or die. I am not surprised by the behavior of these companies, but do note that they have ascended to new levels of greed. I made a film about the behavior of these companies in 1975, and sadly it has only gotten much much worse. The name of the film was Do No Harm.
72
Please stop the constant pharma bashing as it only hides the real cost factor in the health care industry... Doctors salaries. Being a member of the highest earning profession, it feels a little like you are throwing stones while sitting in a glass house.
And what was the pharma industry supposed to do? First they show again and again and again that there are no severe side effects. And when they then develop other drugs they get blamed as well. Assume Amgen only charges 7000 a year. You would still complain of the high prices. Yet if Amgen cuts their earnings in half, they are bankrupt. Biologic drugs like antibodies are expensive to produce.
So what to do? Not do research in the area? Maybe universal health care would be the way to go...
And what was the pharma industry supposed to do? First they show again and again and again that there are no severe side effects. And when they then develop other drugs they get blamed as well. Assume Amgen only charges 7000 a year. You would still complain of the high prices. Yet if Amgen cuts their earnings in half, they are bankrupt. Biologic drugs like antibodies are expensive to produce.
So what to do? Not do research in the area? Maybe universal health care would be the way to go...
Searching for the (Donald Goldmacher) 1975 medical documentary "Do No Harm" online, I am finding other films by that name in the search engines. There are references to Goldmacher's documentaries and works of conscience however unfortunately NO LINK for this particular film "Do No Harm".
Wish I could find it so as to shine more light on this article about satins.
History repeats itself.
Wish I could find it so as to shine more light on this article about satins.
History repeats itself.
Unfortunately, the film is no longer in distribution. Should you wish to see it, please contact me. As to the charge that it is physician fees that are driving up the costs of health care, I am afraid that HH, writing from Switzerland is either a shill for Big Pharma, or is woefully ill informed about the economics of the medical care system in our country. Two of the biggest reasons for our cost of care being double that of Europe is the insanity of having a private insurance industry, when Medicare already show how a single payer system can work, and the costs of Big Pharma, who have successfully lobbied Congress to not allow the government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare. The very height of corruption at work here.
The prevalence of indifference, arrogance and disingenuousness in the so called healthcare profession leaves a lot to be desired. God alone knows how many "latest best drugs" have given way to another latest best. Newspapers report daily on the overprescribing of unnecessary medications, the payment of doctors who get paid to play, the monitoring of prescribing patterns for the awarding of various rewards and a host of organized crime-like schemes for rewards. All related to the amassing of massive profits for drug and equipment companies as well as conscience deprived professional who skip that oft spoken of "first do no harm' joke of theirs. Do you recall that guy rowing a boat while promoting a cholesterol lowering drug? His was a false story. Typical! I would advise against that $14,000.00 gamble. Life is a game of odds which often ends in sickness and death. The medical and pharmaceutical industry make false claims about their uniform goodness. Environmental issues relating to insect control, vaccines, water and sewage are at the core of increasing longevity. It is clear that human habits like eating habits, rest and exercise need evaluation and improvement. Drugs and expensive procedures have their places and do help a tiny minority of the World's population whom do not continue deterioration while dispensing unreasonable quantities of money for that privilege. This ballyhoo compares well with the brouhaha about stents and Laragh's painted mice.
5
Earl Grey tea. Look it up.
5
There is a cheap and effective way to lower cholesterol and reduce heart attack risk: A whole foods, plant-based diet.
15
Actually, high fat, low carb diet prevents metabolic syndrome: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3530364/
@FF:
Equally effective, although not as cheap, is a whole foods omnivorous diet.
Equally effective, although not as cheap, is a whole foods omnivorous diet.
Thanks for the link but that is not the actual conclusion, which is that it's OK for docs to recommend low-carb diets to obese patients for weight loss. Nowhere does it say "high fat." The discussion section notes that this meta-analysis did not report on sources of dietary protein and fat. It did note that in the 19-year, 82,000-person Nurses' Health Study, a "dietary pattern of high intakes of vegetable protein and unsaturated fat was associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease, lower risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, ... and a low-carbohydrate diet emphasizing animal sources of fat and protein was associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and all-cause mortality."
I saw no reference to people with liver sensitivity to statins. This is one of the biggest negative side effects, along with muscle pain as noted. Unless i missed it in the article, why no comment about statins(or alternatives) for people with adverse liver function to the current drug options?
6
I am a male in my mid 60s. A week ago, my lab work came back and showed elevated total (266) and LDL cholesterol, but my LDL was mostly pattern A, triglycerides were 61, HDL was 87, glucose was 87, CRP was bdl, blood pressure is normal w/o meds, and BMI is 23. As he does every 2 or 3 yrs when I have a lipid panel, my dr recommends a generic statin. As I do every 2 or 3 yrs, I decline.
I am betting that the doctor would be treating a chemical lab value, not a condition, if, with my values, I were to take statins or other LDL-lowering medication. When I check the Framingham calculator, which omits triglycerides, I get a 12% risk of death from CVD in the next 10 yrs. Statins are typically prescribed when the risk is half of this, so I know where my doctor is coming from. But, even assuming the Framingham calculator is not overstating my risk of CVD mortality, my overall risk of dying in the next 10 yrs is about 20% under a life expectancy calculator, such as that found in http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/mortality-risk-accurately-predi...
So what gives here? I've a 20% chance of dying and maybe half of that is attributable to heart disease. Sounds about right. I assume that the point of treating cholesterol levels is not to extend my life expectancy from, say, 83 to, say, 95, but to reduce the odds of not making my life expectancy. Well, I'm close enough to that that I'll take my chances, rather than risk statin side effects.
I am betting that the doctor would be treating a chemical lab value, not a condition, if, with my values, I were to take statins or other LDL-lowering medication. When I check the Framingham calculator, which omits triglycerides, I get a 12% risk of death from CVD in the next 10 yrs. Statins are typically prescribed when the risk is half of this, so I know where my doctor is coming from. But, even assuming the Framingham calculator is not overstating my risk of CVD mortality, my overall risk of dying in the next 10 yrs is about 20% under a life expectancy calculator, such as that found in http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/mortality-risk-accurately-predi...
So what gives here? I've a 20% chance of dying and maybe half of that is attributable to heart disease. Sounds about right. I assume that the point of treating cholesterol levels is not to extend my life expectancy from, say, 83 to, say, 95, but to reduce the odds of not making my life expectancy. Well, I'm close enough to that that I'll take my chances, rather than risk statin side effects.
24
You may benefit from a new doctor. Pay 100 and get a Cat Scan Coronary Calcium score. It likely will be zero.
1
Geez seriously. Unless you are one of the rare sufferers of familial hypercholesterolemia so severe that you've had heart attacks before the age of six or so, you don't need these drugs.
Big Pharma doesn't want you to know that vitamin C is a plaque-buster, as is ginger; any reputable book on natural alternatives to prescription drugs can show you how to treat your high cholesterol without destroying your muscles or risking dementia or developing type 2 diabetes.
Yes--you need to do your research and probably fight with your doctor. But all this sad sighing of *I don't want to take these drugs but my doctor...*
It*s your body. It*s your life. Start eating natural artery-cleaners like beans and legumes. Use lots of anti-inflammatory spices. Learn to enjoy food again, and stop anguishing over this nonsense.
Big Pharma doesn't want you to know that vitamin C is a plaque-buster, as is ginger; any reputable book on natural alternatives to prescription drugs can show you how to treat your high cholesterol without destroying your muscles or risking dementia or developing type 2 diabetes.
Yes--you need to do your research and probably fight with your doctor. But all this sad sighing of *I don't want to take these drugs but my doctor...*
It*s your body. It*s your life. Start eating natural artery-cleaners like beans and legumes. Use lots of anti-inflammatory spices. Learn to enjoy food again, and stop anguishing over this nonsense.
219
Good lord. This is a catalog of nonsense.
Let's be clear about one thing: whatever their side effects, statins are known to save lives.
I'd be the first to agree that one should focus on lifestyle changes before resorting to any medication. Exercise, weight loss, don't smoke, and a healthy diet such as the Mediterranean are probably the essence of that.
But please, please, avoid the scientifically untested crackpot stuff. It's your life that's at stake.
Let's be clear about one thing: whatever their side effects, statins are known to save lives.
I'd be the first to agree that one should focus on lifestyle changes before resorting to any medication. Exercise, weight loss, don't smoke, and a healthy diet such as the Mediterranean are probably the essence of that.
But please, please, avoid the scientifically untested crackpot stuff. It's your life that's at stake.
3
SCA's comment accurately reflects the base reasons for the existence of the FDA. Snake oil. Drugs have to be proven by scientific research to be both safe and effective. It is not legal for company to make unsupported medical claims for its products. There is not now nor has there ever been even the least evidence that vitamin C, beans and legumes, garlic, fish oil or anything else sold by the health food industry to the gullible public will affect atherosclerotic plaques.
1
And exactly why do you think the Mediterranean diet works? It's the abundance of specific nutrients and fiber in that food you're eating....
If you read the protocol for studies of statins you will see that there is a "wash out" period before they start the actual test. Anyone who has muscle pain or other symptoms of intolerance is washed out of the study. Also I wish the commenters would refrain from their own recommendations for treating high cholesterol. Diet and exercise don't work for everyone.
20
I have a problem with people who categorically state that all medical problems, including too-high cholesterol, can be solved with diet and exercise. On the other hand, it never hurts to give alternatives such as diet and exercise a try before one starts taking a drug which may be harmful, useless rather than truly useful, and/or expensive. Or to experiment with diet and exercise while taking a medication to see if the amount of the medication can be reduced or eliminated entirely. Of course, one problem is that many people on statins discover that they are unable to do much in the way of exercise because of muscle pain, weakness, or, in some cases, mental deterioration that interferes with their ability to participate in sports that require skill and knowledge.
Most people don't realize that taking such drugs only reduces their risk of heart disease by a small percent: usually less than 10% and 5% is more typical.
There are also plenty of alternatives to statins, like B3 and Niacin, both of which are relatively inexpensive. Untreated, I have high cholesterol and high triglycerides, but I've never taken a statin and with Niacin and another drug for triglycerides as well as exercise and diet, my cholesterol and triglycerides are within normal limits and my good to bad cholesterol ratio is off the charts.
IMO, the medical industry has gone completely out of control when they charge $18,000 a year for a cholesterol reducing drug. (If a drug made one 20 years younger, *maybe* it would be worth $18K a year). But I think it's a moot point because most insurance plans wouldn't pay for such a drug anyway. Most plans today won't even pay for a reasonably priced drug if there's a lower-priced generic alternative. And IMO, there's no way that Medicare should pay for such a drug.
I know it costs a lot of money to launch a new drug, but the drug companies are operating like criminal enterprises.
Many people cannot control cholesterol by diet and exercise, but many can. Unfortunately, we look for easy solutions like a pill instead of doing the work to reduce eating fats, especially saturated fats and the work to regularly exercise. You can join a hell of a health club for a lot less than $18K a year.
There are also plenty of alternatives to statins, like B3 and Niacin, both of which are relatively inexpensive. Untreated, I have high cholesterol and high triglycerides, but I've never taken a statin and with Niacin and another drug for triglycerides as well as exercise and diet, my cholesterol and triglycerides are within normal limits and my good to bad cholesterol ratio is off the charts.
IMO, the medical industry has gone completely out of control when they charge $18,000 a year for a cholesterol reducing drug. (If a drug made one 20 years younger, *maybe* it would be worth $18K a year). But I think it's a moot point because most insurance plans wouldn't pay for such a drug anyway. Most plans today won't even pay for a reasonably priced drug if there's a lower-priced generic alternative. And IMO, there's no way that Medicare should pay for such a drug.
I know it costs a lot of money to launch a new drug, but the drug companies are operating like criminal enterprises.
Many people cannot control cholesterol by diet and exercise, but many can. Unfortunately, we look for easy solutions like a pill instead of doing the work to reduce eating fats, especially saturated fats and the work to regularly exercise. You can join a hell of a health club for a lot less than $18K a year.
27
Niacin improves cholesterol numbers but not life expectancy according to research reported in the NYTimes a few years ago. Statins prolong life.
3
Statins prolong life for drug companies
Why isn't ezetimibe (Zetia) a good and much cheaper alternative to statins, given the recent 18,000 participants study (reported by Gina Kolata in the NYT 11.18.2014, "Study Finds Alternative to Anti-Cholesterol Drug" ) that it indeed protects people from heart attacks and strokes, and has no side effects ?
2
Zetia is not much cheaper than most all statins. In fact it is relatively much more expensive: in my experience 4-10 times more expensive per dose, depending on the statin.
1
If you read the study carefully, you'd see that the Zetia was used as a supplement to rather large statin doses. It's a good guess that it would be of some use on its own, but that wasn't shown in that trial. For people with really high LDL it just won't go very far toward reducing it without some statin supplement.
Zeros does not have any medical benefit.
If you're an appropriate candidate for statins but they give you muscle pain, take a tip from this medical writer--ask your doc to try alternate-day dosing. Most agents will still lower your LDL sufficiently on this regimen, but with much less chance of muscle pain. I found this out myself by researching PubMed, and even my cardiologist--a paid speaker for a pricey newer statin--reluctantly had to agree that it was a safe and effective strategy to try. And it worked. And it makes the cheaper drug even cheaper.
8
My doctor wanted me to take statins and all kinds of other stuff, I refused and she fired me for being uncooperative. There is nothing wrong with me that needs fixing. I often think about the people in the little German town I grew up in, they did not take medications, they all got old, they were never tested for all those illnesses they try to find in us today. We ate good food which we prepared at home, we remained active and we had friends with whom we could laugh. It worked for my German friends and family, I guess it will work for me.
I am not going to change my life to please that bossy lady doctor. I might cut back on cheese a little, not to lower cholesterol but to lose a little weight.
I am not going to change my life to please that bossy lady doctor. I might cut back on cheese a little, not to lower cholesterol but to lose a little weight.
62
You are not the first person I have heard about being "fired" by their doctor. Can you imagine?
I know someone who loves his doctor, but who would fire him if he didn't take the prescribed statins. But he does not want to take statins. So for 11 months after his check-up he doesn't take them. Then, beginning the month or so before his next appointment, he starts taking them again to get his cholesterol level down to where it will please the doctor. Then he starts the cycle again for the next year.
I am not making this up.
I know someone who loves his doctor, but who would fire him if he didn't take the prescribed statins. But he does not want to take statins. So for 11 months after his check-up he doesn't take them. Then, beginning the month or so before his next appointment, he starts taking them again to get his cholesterol level down to where it will please the doctor. Then he starts the cycle again for the next year.
I am not making this up.
13
I'd have fired the doctor before she could fire me. My body, my choices, and no doctor is God, even though some think they are.
My cardiologist has noted my clear instructions: no statins, not now, not ever, period, for me.
My cardiologist has noted my clear instructions: no statins, not now, not ever, period, for me.
13
L from NYC - I wanted to fire her but she is part of the largest medical group practice in Georgia and when you become persona non grata there your are all but denied access to the only Hand Surgeon, the only Rheumatologist, etc in town. Other internist not associated with the group will tell you in July their quota of Medicare patients is filled for the year. Without a doctor you have to seek treatment in the ER with all the illegal aliens and other uninsured or undesirables like me. But that is fine - I am still having fun.
I understand that some people have a genetic predisposition to high cholesterol, but I'm guessing they're a minority. Why can't doctors works with their patients to improve their diets and exercise habits? Sure, it takes longer, and it doesn't enrich the pharmacy companies, but it's effective and no side effects.
12
I stopped taking statins after 15 years because of liver problems. Within 1 month after stopping statin use my liver function returned to normal. Of course my cholesterol level went up significantly but at age 73 I need my liver more than I need low cholesterol. Clinical studies of statins do not run for 15 years so I have to wonder if long term statin use has a progressive negative effect on one's liver or skeletal muscle function.
28
Not paying $14.000 a year for statin drugs, there are alternatives.
Big pharma has gone berserk.!!
Big pharma has gone berserk.!!
14
"Dr. John Ioannidis, a director of Stanford University’s Meta-Research Innovation Center, who once estimated that about half of published results across medicine were inflated or wrong, noted the proportion in psychology was even larger than he had thought. He said the problem could be even worse in other fields, including cell biology, economics, neuroscience, clinical medicine, and animal research."
-- From "Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed, Study Says," at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/science/many-social-science-findings-n...
"Reporting of adverse events and medication errors by healthcare professionals and consumers is voluntary in the United States."
-- Federal Drug Administration (http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Surveil...
Given the above, I am a lot less likely to believe it when researchers claim few side effects with statins in patients that used them during trials.
I have used statins to reduce cholesterol. After several months of use, my leg muscles became so weak that I buckled at the knees sometimes when I walked.
I reported it to my doctor, who switched my regimen to a non-statin, but I doubt he reported my side effects to the FDA.
There is no requirement that doctors relay this information about patient-reported side effects, no matter how serious.
There should be, for debilitating side-effects as serious as the one I faced.
-- From "Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed, Study Says," at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/science/many-social-science-findings-n...
"Reporting of adverse events and medication errors by healthcare professionals and consumers is voluntary in the United States."
-- Federal Drug Administration (http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Surveil...
Given the above, I am a lot less likely to believe it when researchers claim few side effects with statins in patients that used them during trials.
I have used statins to reduce cholesterol. After several months of use, my leg muscles became so weak that I buckled at the knees sometimes when I walked.
I reported it to my doctor, who switched my regimen to a non-statin, but I doubt he reported my side effects to the FDA.
There is no requirement that doctors relay this information about patient-reported side effects, no matter how serious.
There should be, for debilitating side-effects as serious as the one I faced.
19
And my relative's doctor flatly refused to believe that the statin was causing her problems. That didn't get reported either, just like all the other problems with statins that doctors hear about from their patients but deny because they choose to believe the drug reps.
1
Wasn't there an analysis that showed that 100 people would need to take statins for 10 years to perhaps prevent one heart attack? And suffer the side effects like muscle wasting, which to judge by my many elderly colleagues is real and devastating?
Any drug advertised on TV is unnecessary. Ever seen a hypertension med or antibiotic commercial during the game?
Any drug advertised on TV is unnecessary. Ever seen a hypertension med or antibiotic commercial during the game?
24
Gina Kolata has helped the public understand heart care innovations since the 1970s. I retired from the Mayo Clinic recently, and the developments in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of heart disease since I was a premedical student at Johns Hopkins in 1964 are unbelievable. I describe them in my new book Caring for the Heart: Mayo Clinic and the Rise of Specialization. It often takes years to sort out whether new treatments and preventive measures are effective and safe. Today, the goal of statin therapy (and these new drugs costing $14,000 a year) is to prevent heart attacks and death. The benefits of statins and other measures, such as smoking cessation, in terms of reducing cardiovascular risk have been proven. These new statin-alternative drugs may well be worth the cost to society, but that will take years to prove. In terms of today, Kolata writes, “Doctors and patients who maintain they are intolerant to statins say they are confronted with a clash between the art and science of medicine.” She notes the huge cost consequences of shifting millions of patients to the new drugs unnecessarily. Senior health economist Victor Fuchs wrote in 2011, “When escalating health care expenditures threaten the solvency of the federal government and the vitality of the U.S. economy, physicians are forced to reexamine the choices they make in caring for their patients.” It is right that patients influence these choices. We all must pay more attention to health care issues.
7
You sound very knowledgeable as well as dedicated but I'm surprised and quite skeptical when you state without even the least qualification that "The benefits of statins...in terms of reducing cardiovascular risk have been proven." There are lot of important questions about the benefits of statins, as they are currently prescribed for people who have not already had a heart attack or been diagnosed with CVD. The conclusion to a meta-analysis published at PubMed, for example, states that "While secondary prevention with statins provides considerable improvement of cardiovascular morbidity/mortality, primary prevention with statins provides only small and clinically hardly relevant improvement of cardiovascular morbidity/mortality." Side effects are widely ignored, NNT is ignored, and factors such as the continual lowering of "acceptable" cholesterol levels without good evidence of improved outcome are ignored. Why is that?
I do not see any mention here about statins and rashes and itching. I had a rash and itching for months, along with muscle aches, while taking a statin. My doctor suggested stopping the statin for 2 weeks, and voila, no more rash and itching. I am trying to maintain a low fat diet, but if I have to start taking cholesterol meds again, I don't know what I'll do.
10
Try Choleast, a supplement of red rice yeast ... a natural and very effective statin that does not cause the problems of the synthesized versions the pharma companies are pushing. You must pair it with Ubiquinol, though, to prevent liver problems.
1
Terry the active ingredient in red rice yeast is lovastatin. It occurs naturally but can cause the same problems with muscle aches. The only reason some people can take it that couldn't take synthetic statins is that it occurs in lower concentration. In time however it may be toxic to muscle and liver.
1
Spend time doing some research on statins to get as much information as you can on whether or not you will really benefit from taking a statin. Unless you are a middle-aged man who has already had a heart attack or been diagnosed with cardiovascular disease, you will find that there is actually a lot of evidence that statins will not help you. Find out as much as you can and discuss it with your doctor. Do not just blindly accept that you should be taking a statin.
1
When it comes to drugs and side effects, to paraphrase Yogi Berra, 50% of the issue is 90% mental.
1
That is an arrogantly inaccurate statement. Many of the people suffering from side effects, often quite severe, had no idea that their problems were being caused by the statin they had been prescribed. I was responsible for the care of an elderly relative whose health started deteriorating after she was put on a statin. It was observable to family members that her memory was failing, her understanding was failing, she was becoming physically weaker and weaker, going from using a walker to being confined to a wheel chair. In addition to what we could see, she complained, sometimes almost in tears, about how much she hurt all over. When the doctor could not offer even a mildly plausible reason for what was going on, I took on the task of researching her medications. After quite a bit of effort, we became convinced that the problems could in all probability be caused by the statin and told the doctor we wanted it removed from her medication regime. Within days she showed improvement in all the problem areas and the improvement continued until she was considerably better. Unfortunately, the improvement stopped short of her regaining the same level of well-being as she had had. At the time none of us knew anything much about statins other than the fact that everyone and his brother seemed to be taking them. Don't tell me or the statin sufferers I've met that it's "mental".
Here is the heart of the matter (no pun intended), as stated in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, in an article published in October 2011 entitled "Cholesterol Conundrum" which discusses statin use: "The results have, however, underscored the danger of indulging in a common logical shortcut in medical thinking—assuming that artificially producing normal test results in a patient is the same as conferring good health on that patient."
All doctors and patients should be thinking about that when any drug is being considered that will interfere with any major body function, whether it's treatment for cholesterol, for osteoporosis, etc.
All doctors and patients should be thinking about that when any drug is being considered that will interfere with any major body function, whether it's treatment for cholesterol, for osteoporosis, etc.
170
Statins are the only cholesterol lowering drugs that have been proven to not only lower cholesterol numbers but also reduce the risk of heart attack, stroke, and most recently Alzheimer's disease. Plenty of studies show this, and the stodgy FDA now allows statins to make the claim to reduce cardiac disease. Other non-statin drugs that also lower LDL cannot prove reduction in cardiovascular disease.
If you can't take 'em, don't take 'em. But don't massage the truth to make it seem that they aren't important. They are plenty effective in reducing the most common cause of morbidity and death in the Western world.
If you can't take 'em, don't take 'em. But don't massage the truth to make it seem that they aren't important. They are plenty effective in reducing the most common cause of morbidity and death in the Western world.
1
What incentive does a patient have to claim intolerance to a medication that promises to reduce the chance of a first heart attack and prolong life in those who have already had a heart attack? Exactly none. We all know people who complained of the typical problems now associated with statins before those problems became widely known. But apparently those complaints, from many thousands, if not millions of patients, are anecdotal, while the results of double blind clinical studies are science. I guess that's true because there has never been a drug approved by the FDA as effective and safe that was later found to be dangerous enough to be taken off the market. Oh, wait, in actual clinical practice it happens all the time. All drugs are a balance between risk and reward, statins included. And with the number needed to treat being pretty high with statins, the side effects need to be almost negligible to justify their widespread use. A lot of people need to take statins for a lot of years to realize a random reduction in cardiac events. So for the medical community the incentive is to keep patients on the drugs to realize that random reduction. Hence, the minimizing of side effects as anecdotal. Everyone taking statins knows numerous people who cannot tolerate them.
30
If you're interested in some more science, see
www.thennt.com
which compares the number needed to treat (NNT) with the number needed to harm. In the case of statins, it claims that 1 person, of 104 treated was helped, whereas 1 in 100 were harmed (developed diabetes).
Similarly, 1 in 154 were helped (preventing stroke) while 1 in 10 were harmed (muscle damage). Lots of other fascinating ratios for you to ponder before handing your credit card to the pharmacist.
www.thennt.com
which compares the number needed to treat (NNT) with the number needed to harm. In the case of statins, it claims that 1 person, of 104 treated was helped, whereas 1 in 100 were harmed (developed diabetes).
Similarly, 1 in 154 were helped (preventing stroke) while 1 in 10 were harmed (muscle damage). Lots of other fascinating ratios for you to ponder before handing your credit card to the pharmacist.
"The statin trials...found no more muscle aches...in patients who took statins than in those who took placebos."
Then something's screwy. I can't be the only person who began taking a particular statin, and quickly, out of the blue, developed such severe calf muscle pain, a kind of pain I'd never had before, that I could barely walk - when I'm used to walking and hiking miles. And when my doctor switched me to a different statin at effectively the same dose, the pain vanished permanently.
Unlike the scientists doing these studies, I don't dismiss the fact that some people just can't handle statins, like some people can't handle antibiotics, or diuretics, or whatever. Their doctors don't say, "Well, so-and-so takes it with no problem, so why can't you?" Instead doctors listen and patients report, and they work together to find something effective and tolerable. That's how medical practice should work.
So I have to question the legitimacy of studies that find no difference in, say, muscle aches between people who took statins and those who took placebos. They're coming at it from the wrong angle: comparing statin people with placebo people doesn't get at the issue; you have to compare the same people on different statins.
Like my doctor did with me and like doctors all over the country do every day with their patients. Thankfully, they dismiss those studies, listen to their patients and figure out something that works.
Then something's screwy. I can't be the only person who began taking a particular statin, and quickly, out of the blue, developed such severe calf muscle pain, a kind of pain I'd never had before, that I could barely walk - when I'm used to walking and hiking miles. And when my doctor switched me to a different statin at effectively the same dose, the pain vanished permanently.
Unlike the scientists doing these studies, I don't dismiss the fact that some people just can't handle statins, like some people can't handle antibiotics, or diuretics, or whatever. Their doctors don't say, "Well, so-and-so takes it with no problem, so why can't you?" Instead doctors listen and patients report, and they work together to find something effective and tolerable. That's how medical practice should work.
So I have to question the legitimacy of studies that find no difference in, say, muscle aches between people who took statins and those who took placebos. They're coming at it from the wrong angle: comparing statin people with placebo people doesn't get at the issue; you have to compare the same people on different statins.
Like my doctor did with me and like doctors all over the country do every day with their patients. Thankfully, they dismiss those studies, listen to their patients and figure out something that works.
50
Then there are the few of us who have a reaction to statins almost never mentioned - whole body rashes. This is my sad situation so I take two non-statins Zetia, and welchol.
1
I have tried statins several times. Each time my brain went haywire. Could not focus on anything lived in a haze. There is no way an actual clinical trial would not turn this up.
I lost track of the number of people I encountered who like me, had these problems and were told by there doctor it was not real.
I lost track of the number of people I encountered who like me, had these problems and were told by there doctor it was not real.
$15,000 per year to treat one patient. How many patients need to be treated to save one year of life? It seems we need some honest perspective in these discussions. Ultimately, medical care cannot exceed country GDP.
33
I will guaranty that if you use statins and are athletic you will have problems. I am a naturally athletic but robust 60 year old. I ski hard down steep slopes all winter. My legs hurt worse and worse on statins during the season. Give them up and I feel better. By the way the heart is a muscle and these drugs are antagonistic toward muscles. And your heart will not give you pain feedback.
18
Not sure about that guaranty.
I'm over 74. Not entirely certain how long I've been on statins. I began before I retired 11 years ago - well after switching to current doctor 18 years ago.
I too am athletic. Bike 20 to 30 miles many days. Swim some. Work out some. Take care of country property a bit under 10 acres - including cutting wood and such.
Early on, I had to switch drugs; I think from Lipitor. My first statin appeared to provoke unpleasant impatience and personality change on my part. In this article, reading of complaints about "hazy memory," I, who once enjoyed a sharper memory, might wonder - but then, I'm in my 75th year.
I've suffered no muscle pain nor - lord knows - no sleep problems.
I'm over 74. Not entirely certain how long I've been on statins. I began before I retired 11 years ago - well after switching to current doctor 18 years ago.
I too am athletic. Bike 20 to 30 miles many days. Swim some. Work out some. Take care of country property a bit under 10 acres - including cutting wood and such.
Early on, I had to switch drugs; I think from Lipitor. My first statin appeared to provoke unpleasant impatience and personality change on my part. In this article, reading of complaints about "hazy memory," I, who once enjoyed a sharper memory, might wonder - but then, I'm in my 75th year.
I've suffered no muscle pain nor - lord knows - no sleep problems.
I had muscle pain, stomach problems and memory problems on statins. Tried them all, including one chemically similar to red yeast rice. For a few years have been on Colestipol and red yeast rice and on a very low fat diet and some exercise. So far so good. Memory problems are now listed as a side effect of statins. These problems include transient global amnesia, which I had before starting statins. A flight surgeon has written about his TGA after taking statins. He stopped them and was eventually persuaded by his cardiologist to try them again. He did, with a recurrence of TGA. I'm of course leery of another bout of TGA which I haven't had on Colestipol.
There have been recent tests showing statins are not as widely helpful as earlier claims.
There have been recent tests showing statins are not as widely helpful as earlier claims.
6
This article completely omits recent findings published in JAMA that the calculator used to establish who should take statins is effectively debunked Physicians are now operating in a larger dilemma: what are the correct and effective therapies. Disappointing that the NYT reporter writes a story that validates a debunked therapy.
18
I will consider writing prescriptions for Praluent if and when it has been shown to prevent coronary artery and/or cerebrovascular events, and not before then. The fact that it lowers LDL cholesterol levels is not equivalent to saying that it prevents end-organ damage. The only medications that gave been unequivocally shown to reduce heart attacks and strokes while lowering LDL are the statins. This is true for people whether or not they gave ever had a cardiovascular event. The data are unimpeachable. A number of other drugs lower LDL, but have not been shown to improve outcomes. To spend obscene amounts of money on a drug which merely makes the numbers look prettier, with knowing whether it actually accomplishes anything useful to people, is ludicrous. Perhaps in 2017, when meaningful data for Praluent are available, we will know better. I am quite content to take my atorvastatin, as I have been doing for years, without any side-effects, as do the vast majority of my patients who happily take statins, secure in the knowledge that they are improving their odds of better outcomes.
14
A large recent randomized clinical trial showed that Zetia in conjunction with statins lowered bad cardiovascular events by the same amount that you'd predict from the reduction of LDL if it were achieved via a statin. So your assertion is incorrect. Furthermore examination of a collection of LDL-lowering genetic conditions shows that the (large) reduction in bad cardiovascular events is predictable directly from the LDL level. So it is likely though not yet absolutely proven that not only Zetia and statins but other LDL-lowering techniques will have similar effects on endpoints.
The IMPROVE-IT study was the only randomized, prospective double-blinded study (out of who knows how many were buried by Merck) to show any improvement whatsoever in outcomes with Zetia. The reduction was 6.4%. This study followed by several years the embarrassing study that showed no beneficial effect of Zetia on the arterial wall. That study resulted in a plummeting of sales of Zetia. Moreover, as you know, in the IMPROVE-IT study Zetia was not used as monotherapy, but with a statin. We have zero evidence that Zetia when used by itself will improve outcomes. Moreover, compare the 6.4% the outcomes benefit in this one study with the more than 30% benefit shown with statins in countless studies.
The genetic data are interesting, but prove nothing. Associations do not prove causality. The assumption that lowering LDL is equivalent to reducing risk has blown up in many pharmaceutical manufactuerer's faces over the past few decades. Show me several well-designed large-scale prospective randomized studies, and I will be willing to suggest that my patients spend their hard-earned money in the hope of reducing their risk of heart attacks and strokes.
At this point, Zetia alone has zero demonstrable benefit. I will occasionally use it for patients who are intolerant to statins, but I am clear with my patients that the data are lacking. It's their choice.
The genetic data are interesting, but prove nothing. Associations do not prove causality. The assumption that lowering LDL is equivalent to reducing risk has blown up in many pharmaceutical manufactuerer's faces over the past few decades. Show me several well-designed large-scale prospective randomized studies, and I will be willing to suggest that my patients spend their hard-earned money in the hope of reducing their risk of heart attacks and strokes.
At this point, Zetia alone has zero demonstrable benefit. I will occasionally use it for patients who are intolerant to statins, but I am clear with my patients that the data are lacking. It's their choice.
What bothers me about these NYtimes articles about cholesterol lowering drugs is that they NEVER discuss the minimal effects these drugs have on actually decreasing death. It is just assumed they have great outcomes, and especially when used as primary prevention, actually have no effect. Mediterranean diet and exercise DESTROY any drug when looking at outcomes like mortality. A real cost-effective solution is simple: subsidize and incentivize gym and exercise memberships for a fraction of the cost
34
Good luck trying to encourage the majority of the population to exercise regularly and alter their diet. Many insurance programs and employers already offer discounts on gym membership. Also high cholesterol can be genetic so for these individuals a drug program may be needed in addition to a diet and exercise
5
Whether or not you think that the prices for these products is reasonable is your call, but my guess is that there will soon be alternatives for these drugs that are cheaper. They work by inhibiting an enzyme called PCSK9, which is a protease. The drugs themselves are antibodies, which are proteins that can only be synthesized by live cells in sterile culture; thus they are expensive. Chemists have gotten pretty good at developing protease inhibitors. I assume that talented chemists are currently at work developing synthetic inhibitors of PCSK9 that should be quite a lot cheaper to make than antibodies.
4
Drugs are not priced according to their cost to make. They are priced according to what the manufacturers think they can get away with.
1
Statins are a wonderful medicine. I have been taking a pill a day for the last fifteen years and I believe they have saved my life. My last blood test showed my total cholesterol as 117, that is remarkable considering that it was quite elevated fifteen years ago. Fortunately I am part of the majority for whom the medicine has no side effects. I sympathize with those who have a sensitivity to it.. If the alternative is as good but much more expensive, I recommend they go for it and see if the manufacturer offers vouchers or other cost savings. It beats having heart surgery -or worse.
26
That is a ridiculously low level. Google "the dangers of low cholesterol." Are you trying to set some sort of record? The threshold is 200 (which is already too low), meaning that if you were at 180 you would be in great shape. I fear you are doing long-term damage to your health.
5
I switched from Pravastain to Lipitor generic and in a matter of months my LDL went from around 100 to 50, with my average around 120. No side effects. I do yoga and climb mountains. I wonder if the switch was even advised when I was already at 100 LDL.
I do know of people who complain of muscle weakness, but were forced back to Lipitor when their LDL soared,
I do know of people who complain of muscle weakness, but were forced back to Lipitor when their LDL soared,
1
Only down to 117? Maybe if you get down to 50, I'll be impressed. I mean, it's not like your body uses cholesterol for anything important in staying healthy, anyway, right?
1
It is a scam. The drug will be withdrawn within a few years due to unanticipated side effects.
20
While that would be good for all the people who are unnecessarily taking statins and suffering sometimes debilitating side effects, it would be truly unfortunate for those people who are actually benefiting from statins. What is needed is to revise the guidelines for prescribing statins so that they are used appropriately and not overprescribed in the interests of big profits for big Pharma.
This is all so ridiculous. Stop eating animal products and your cholesterol problems will also stop. As will the drug makers' profits. Aye, there's the rub.
11
This is long-debunked nonsense. What you eat has very little effect on your cholesterol levels. Your body produces almost all of the cholesterol in your blood regardless of your diet.
24
Absolute vegan nonsense. There is zero evidence to prove your point. Vegans just can't be happy being vegans because they don't want to use animals for food. They have to justify their veganism with bogus "science."
5
Sorry, it's not "ridiculous". My youngest brother (and my 94 year old mother) have been vegetarians for the last 30 years, maybe more. He has fairly high cholesterol similar to both his brothers. What was interesting though was that several years ago it was recommended based upon our family histories that he take a statin. He suffered fairly severe side effects that this article seems to downplay. He is a fine golfer and during the period he was taking the meds he became hunched over and suffered severe muscle and leg pains. Then he decided one day to stop taking the statin. Within a week, his pain was gone; he was standing upright and he was able to play golf again. I saw this happen. Clearly there can be side effects for some people.
6
I started taking a statin 20 years ago, in my late 20's when it was discovered I had somewhat high cholesterol and a very strong family history of early heart attacks. At the time, I was running 20 miles a week, swimming, and doing additional aerobics and lifting weights. I was also on a self-imposed very lowfat diet before it was discovered. So I think it was likely an inherited trait. Though I'm now approaching the age when other members of my family have had heart attacks, I have reasonable peace of mind and very low cholesterol. None of my other family members were on statins when they had their heart attacks. We will see if it makes a difference. Hope so!
43
Maybe you should reconsider your low fat diet. Everyone now knows that added sugar in the diet is the bad guy. Familiarize yourself with the Mediterranean diet.
I believe strongly that your life of exercise, sensible eating and statin usage will make a huge difference between your coronary experiences compared to other members of your extended family.
I have known more than a few statin prescribed people that read about possible side effects of statins and quickly develop those side effects. Many of these "statin sensitive" individuals do no exercise and have other unhealthy habits.
I have known more than a few statin prescribed people that read about possible side effects of statins and quickly develop those side effects. Many of these "statin sensitive" individuals do no exercise and have other unhealthy habits.
1
The low fat diet is your biggest problem. Increase your fat intake with healthy fats and get rid of sugar, refined flour based products. Your heart will thank you.
1
Does not talk about hair loss in SOME women who take statins
4
I tried 3 different statin drugs and also red yeast rice. All gave me intolerable leg pain which started two weeks to several months after starting treatment. The pain, bad enough to keep me up at night, always went away within a few weeks of stopping the meds. My dr. was skeptical, but I know when something is wrong for my body. I've reduced my cholesterol quite a bit with diet and exercise, but my numbers will never be ideal. So, if drs. And drug makers want everyone on cholesterol lowering drugs they need to develop reasonably-priced treatments that don'the come with nasty side effects.
90
I too tried red yeast and statins prescribed by my cardiologist. My digestive system went out of whack, many uncontrollable gas explosions in public and bloating (I'm 79 and thought that's why they call us "old farts"). Experiments with other statins led to muscle pain in my left leg. My primary care doctor couldn't find any reason despite scans. A friend who is a doctor in a far away city advised stopping the statins and the pain disappeared in a little more than a week. I learned much in my doctoral studies about "controlled experiments, the number needed and the power. Too many are just ways to publish (as in "publish or perish") and have very little validity. Run from a doctor who doesn't believe you and cites studies against your experience. We are all different.
2
Good doctors will recommend natural remedies first. Unfortunately many patient's feel the need to take drugs.
Would like to remind everyone that mid-range acceptable cholesterol numbers back in the 1980s was between 200-250. So spoke the medical professionals. With no studies confirming that making "high" cholesterol anything above 200, the drug corporations, with the cooperation of some doctors, got approval to make "above 200" the indicator that we (and that would now include almost everyone) needed statins. Of course the FDA "went along" as well. And now those of us who have NORMAL FOR HUMANS cholesterol levels of 220 - 260 depending on diet, your physician will likely recommend a statin. It's all nonsense and most in the medical profession know it. How many billions have Americans spent on Lipitor, Crestor and the like over the past 3 decades? And more importantly, how many lives have been "saved" as a result? And lastly, how many people have been convinced by their docs that they are ill and are "heart attack imminent" if they don't lower their cholesterol levels? Yes, some relatively few of us really need these meds, but you can't make billions from "some few". The pharma folk had to find a way...and they executed brilliantly.
Statins, for the most part, are the biggest scam ever perpetrated by Big Pharma. For those with hypercholesterolimia they are very important. For those who have had a heart attack they are very important.
But the notion that an otherwise healthy person with a total cholesterol of 220 and a ratio of total cholesterol to LDL of less than 3.5 to 1 will beneift from taking stains is beyond absurd. There is zero evidence that lowering this person's total cholesterol to 190 will lower the chance of having a heart attack. And there has been talk of lower the total cholesterol threshold from 200 to 180, which means just about everyone will be taking statins.
And now, instead of statins, we are going to bankrupt the country with a $14,000/year drug that should only be prescribed to the most extreme cases.
But the notion that an otherwise healthy person with a total cholesterol of 220 and a ratio of total cholesterol to LDL of less than 3.5 to 1 will beneift from taking stains is beyond absurd. There is zero evidence that lowering this person's total cholesterol to 190 will lower the chance of having a heart attack. And there has been talk of lower the total cholesterol threshold from 200 to 180, which means just about everyone will be taking statins.
And now, instead of statins, we are going to bankrupt the country with a $14,000/year drug that should only be prescribed to the most extreme cases.
142
Well said!
6
Doctors get paid more for having a certain percentage of their patients on statins. It's called pay for performance. I call it organized crime. Let the buyer beware.
18
Amen!
6
Since most docs seem to usually classify diabetes as a relatively minor risk for statin use, I wonder if the risk factors and overall mortality risk associated with statins might be significantly underestimated, since I suspect that statin use is not commonly linked to diabetes related serious medical problems and deaths.
Links to and excerpts from two relevant articles:
Statins Raise Diabetes Risk for Post-menopausal Females
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/240148.php
"Participants who had been on statins had a 48% higher risk of developing diabetes compared to the other women in their study."
Statins Linked to Raised Risk of Type 2 Diabetes (White males age 45 to 73)
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20150304/statins-linked-to-raised-ris...
"Even after other risk factors were accounted for, people treated with statins were 46 percent more likely to develop diabetes than those not treated with statins."
Links to and excerpts from two relevant articles:
Statins Raise Diabetes Risk for Post-menopausal Females
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/240148.php
"Participants who had been on statins had a 48% higher risk of developing diabetes compared to the other women in their study."
Statins Linked to Raised Risk of Type 2 Diabetes (White males age 45 to 73)
http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20150304/statins-linked-to-raised-ris...
"Even after other risk factors were accounted for, people treated with statins were 46 percent more likely to develop diabetes than those not treated with statins."
21
A recipe for lowering total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol while raising HDL cholesterol: Adopt a vegan diet with no refined sugar, no processed foods except natural soy products, take vitamins D3 and B12, and enjoy yourself. Life is good without statins!
54
Can't imagine enjoying myself or thinking life is good on the described diet. And to the extent my spouse and I did exercise and modify our diets, neither of us was successful in lowering our cholesterol at all. Statins work for both of us, as they did for our parents and our son, and we have had no side effects which we attribute to them. They are cheap and appear to be effective. We see no reason to trade them in for a hair shirt diet, thank you.
2
Don't give general advice to people with different medical conditions. Soy products are high in vitamin K which is a blood-clotting factor. People suffering from hypercoagulation and taking coumadin or such should avoid soy. There can be an arrogance in persons who think they are expert in dietary knowledge and give advice freely..
5
I lowered my cholesterol and no longer need statins because I reduced my consumption of refined sugar and grains (pasta, cereal and bread) by 90%, while having a breakfast of either plain Greek yogurt with blueberries, or eggs (sometimes with no-nitrite bacon) every day for a year.
Please stop the vegan nonsense. And you are correct, life is good without statins. But for the 99%, life would be miserable on a vegan diet.
Please stop the vegan nonsense. And you are correct, life is good without statins. But for the 99%, life would be miserable on a vegan diet.
8
To all of you who think that a dietary change will lower everyone's cholesterol, please be aware that some of us with familial hypercholesterolimia simply cannot. That is not to say that many people cannot resolve problems with exercise and diet, but not everyone.
I take Crestor and have done well on that. I've tried several others and would rather die. Everyone has to work with their own doctor to find the best solution.
On pricing, if the U.S. actually negotiated prices they would come down (thank you Medicare part D!). Pharma companies have to make a profit; if most countries negotiate lower prices then the U.S. Consumer ends up covering the profits. If the U.S. No longer is responsible for profits, then pharma will hold out for more elsewhere, spreading the profit around the world.
I take Crestor and have done well on that. I've tried several others and would rather die. Everyone has to work with their own doctor to find the best solution.
On pricing, if the U.S. actually negotiated prices they would come down (thank you Medicare part D!). Pharma companies have to make a profit; if most countries negotiate lower prices then the U.S. Consumer ends up covering the profits. If the U.S. No longer is responsible for profits, then pharma will hold out for more elsewhere, spreading the profit around the world.
31
By the way, it was George Bush and his republican friends who enacted legislation that forbids Medicare from negotiating drug prices.
79
I couldn't agree with you more on the subject of diet and exercise. They simply don't work for a lot of people.
1
you mean "Thank you Republicans for Medicare Part D" and non-negotiable drug prices.
3
Affordability matters. The US allowed direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs in 1996, unlike other modern countries who find the practice unimaginable. These ads tell us what we should take, and how to ask our doctors to give it to us, with no cost information. If you're covered by Medicaid or an employer sponsored insurance plan with fixed-dollar Rx copays, there is little or no difference in choosing a $14,000-per-year treatment vs. a $30 generic statin. However, those choices drive up insurance premiums for employees while pushing health plans toward high-deductible plan designs. For public programs like Medicaid, it means higher taxes, or less of some other service like parks or schools, or both. We somehow manage to find the money when a new drug costing over $300,000/year helps patients with rare diseases. But we can now imagine a new world when the standard of care for common conditions (diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, arthritis, even contraceptives) exceeds $1,000/month. Insurance costs will follow, employee benefits will shrink further, and taxes must rise. We are not ready for this.
18
I've never had difficulty tolerating a 10mg dose of a statin. My wife, however, did.
A fellow at a health food store told us about CoQ10, amd recommended that one CoQ10 per day would assist in absorbing statin.
This regimen has worked extremely well for my wife and for me, too. She takes red yeast rice with CoQ10 and I take my 10mg prescription statin with CoQ10.
From a purely numeric analysis, our cholesterol levels are low and our HDL and LDL levels are excellent.
A fellow at a health food store told us about CoQ10, amd recommended that one CoQ10 per day would assist in absorbing statin.
This regimen has worked extremely well for my wife and for me, too. She takes red yeast rice with CoQ10 and I take my 10mg prescription statin with CoQ10.
From a purely numeric analysis, our cholesterol levels are low and our HDL and LDL levels are excellent.
6
Tried CO-Q10 and it didn't do a thing for me. Also, it has never been tested for medicinal uses.
2
The statin effect is from Red Yeast Rice, taken in combination with Co_Q10
CoQ10 is controversial as some studies show no benefit. Also seniors have a lowered ability to convert CoQ10 to the active form ubiquinol. In Japan both products have been used for heart failure for 40 plus years.(doesn't mean they are right.) I took 200mg of CoQ10 while taking 3 different statins and developed the severe muscle pains that many other readers are reporting. Finally, I quit the statins and took 300 mg of ubiquinol and after 2 months I am almost back to normal. For those who really want the skinny on Big Pharma read Marcia Angel's book on how they do it. The greed is outrageous.
1
I can't imagine how these large, well-documented studies are managing to miss side effects that large numbers of patients are complaining about.
I had no idea at all that statins had any effect on memory until a family member started forgetting things like, um, her DOG. I was about to have her tested to early-onset Alzheimer's when I read a NYT article on statin side effects. Her doctor took her off the statins and her memory came back like it was before the statins.
I don't think there was another cause for her memory loss, because removing the statins stopped the problem. How can researchers miss things like this? But then Big Pharma companies register more clinical trials than they end up publishing. Perhaps there's cherry-picking involved. Would not be the first time that happened.
I had no idea at all that statins had any effect on memory until a family member started forgetting things like, um, her DOG. I was about to have her tested to early-onset Alzheimer's when I read a NYT article on statin side effects. Her doctor took her off the statins and her memory came back like it was before the statins.
I don't think there was another cause for her memory loss, because removing the statins stopped the problem. How can researchers miss things like this? But then Big Pharma companies register more clinical trials than they end up publishing. Perhaps there's cherry-picking involved. Would not be the first time that happened.
81
The "cholesterol is bad" meme will be on the trash heap of history in our lifetimes. Just as "the calorie in/calorie out" meme is on its deathbed. Cholesterol plaquing of the arterial system is a repair mechanism associated w hyper-inflamation. The cure is not suppression of cholesterol, but reduction of pro-inflammmatory lifestyle and disease processes. This is not new science, it is merely suppression of fact that keeps the cholesterol lowering drugs producing billions and billions yearly.
It is a sad commentary of the manipulation of medicine today.
It is a sad commentary of the manipulation of medicine today.
182
Have you looked at climate "science" ?
statins are very effective on reducing arterial inflammation, in fact that may be the real reason they are so effective.
4
Well, you are correct that cardiovascular disease is an inflammatory condition and leading an anti-inflammatory life can help. However, high levels of LDL are pro-inflammatory. Thus one way to lead an anti-inflammatory life is to reduce LDL. Exactly how you do that is not important, but lowering LDL, measured as blood cholesterol is important; statins do that.
1
We don't yet know if the super-low cholesterol levels are going to be better than the merely low levels produced by statins. But it's already clear that biologics are the future of pharmacotherapy, that the development costs are not nearly as high as the drug companies led us to believe, and therefore the 12 year data exclusivity granted by the ACA is far too generous.
2
I am an older physician - and I kept on getting torn muscles ... like my hamstring ... when running. I switched statins. Same problem. I told my friend, a neurologist, who reported to me that he lost #25 pounds in muscle mass. No more torn muscles. Clinical trials can easily miss "sub clinical" problems that don't rise to the level of ready diagnosis like rhabdomyolysis. With the medications I use routinely, I am looking for subclinical problems as a routine. There are serious limitations to the research. FDA drug approval is only a preliminary crude step to learning about the medications.
44
Absurd! The benefits of statin drugs has been exaggerated, and any benefit has nothing to do with their ability to lower cholesterol. Thy deplete CoQ10 which can cause muscle pain and fatigue. Research shows that any benefit from statins is seen only in middle-aged men already with coronary artery disease. High cholesterol has been a great myth in medicine. Our brains need cholesterol! More research is needed, or at least read the research!
64
When I began taking a statin, my legs began to ache badly. When I complained, my physician told me to start taking a CoQ10 each day. It was amazing: my pain disappeared in a couple of days. It was Soooo easy.
@Sallie: I was also told to take CoQ10 each day. It is a very expensive supplement and NOT covered by any insurance. In fact, the CoQ10 cost several times as much as my generic statin.
Even worse, it did absolutely NOTHING to prevent the pains and aches.
Even worse, it did absolutely NOTHING to prevent the pains and aches.
I don't care what studies say. I never looked at the internet, or read the warning label's cautions. I just took the statin when prescribed. The result? I felt as though I had seriously over done it at the gym after not working out for a long time. For the record, I am an ex accomplished athlete, long in tune with my body, and with a high tolerance for pain.
82
First off, the doctor claiming he is a scientist is wrong. Doctors are engineers of a sort who do what generally seems to work. I am a scientist (physicist) who spent 20 years working in research in a medical school, and discovered that much of the research I encountered was hand-waving.
Second, as a patient on statins (no bad side-effects) I am convinced that statins are a huge scam perpetrated by the drug companies and acquiessed to by the medical profession, because cholesterol is not the villain that it is pumped up to be.
From another point of view, why do we concentrate so much on heart disease and cancer when we all will die anyway. Why not spend the effort on arthritis and other non-life threatening conditions that make that passage to the inevitable so miserable, agonizing, and degrading?
Second, as a patient on statins (no bad side-effects) I am convinced that statins are a huge scam perpetrated by the drug companies and acquiessed to by the medical profession, because cholesterol is not the villain that it is pumped up to be.
From another point of view, why do we concentrate so much on heart disease and cancer when we all will die anyway. Why not spend the effort on arthritis and other non-life threatening conditions that make that passage to the inevitable so miserable, agonizing, and degrading?
220
Not all science is basic or physics or revolutionary or Nobel prize winning; if you take time to look, you will see that Dr. Kopecky has about four pages of peer reviewed publications in the area of the clinical science of cardiology.
Your comments that statins are "a scam" and that "we all will die anyway" raise the question: why do you take them?
Your comments that statins are "a scam" and that "we all will die anyway" raise the question: why do you take them?
3
Yes, we will all die, but doesn't "when" or "how" make any difference? Deaths from heart disease at 50 or 60 used to be fairly common and are much less so now. Wouldn't you like to have that extra 20 to 30 years if you are in reasonable health?
2
well put! Thank you! We have a mania in the US for fighting against death. I'm sorry, it's not a battle any of us will win. But that fear of death is a symptom of a society that spends so much time needing and greeding things on the outside to avoid realizing that there's nothing on the inside. And that, my friend, is the real death--of the person and the society.
1
When I told my doctor that the low dose of statin she prescribed gave me horrible muscle cramps, she told me it wasn't possible -- that wasn't one of the known side effects. So I guess I'm just crazy that when I take them I wake up every night in screaming pain, and when I don't take them, I don't get the pain. Guess what, doctors don't know everything. I'm going to try hemp oil as my friend said it lowered her triglycerides fairly dramatically. And if that doesn't work, I'll try something else (I already have a good diet). But, NO, I won't be spending thousands of dollars for a new drug. Ridiculous.
312
Some advice to you, you should find another doctor. When my patients mention this side effect to me, I discontinue their statin.
15
I hope you found a new doctor. The one you had was an idiot. People need to know that they are responsible for their own health care. A doctor is there to advise and treat you according to your informed concurrence, much as a plumber is there to advise and repair your leaking toilet with, and ONLY with your informed concurrence.
One "evaluation" of your doctor that is not advertized is to observe how many and how often the Armani Army of attractive, product case-wielding drug peddlers parade through the office on their quest to give away quasi-legal kickbacks.
One "evaluation" of your doctor that is not advertized is to observe how many and how often the Armani Army of attractive, product case-wielding drug peddlers parade through the office on their quest to give away quasi-legal kickbacks.
5
Hear, hear! No one cares for you better than you do yourself. Doctors do not know everything, and they are not gods, even if they think they are. I pay mine to give me advice. That doesn't mean I have to take it.
4
Did the physicians interviewed declare they receive absolutely no funding for any purpose (even free office catering by drug vendors and commissions on prescriptions they authorize.) When the author refers to a physician as a "scientist" is she indicating that they have doctorates in a medical discipline? I would say "science" entails disinterestedness and the lack of that disqualifies many physicians in the way of recommendations. They are really only technicians.
Many people report it taking several years for the negative effects to wear off. Any thorough research into the affects of statins should begin with the reports of Beatrice A. Golomb, MD, PhD. An article in the Washington Post states:
"But these drugs are not without risks. Golomb has amassed thousands of reports at her Web site Statineffects.com, detailing adverse reactions from statins. She says that cognitive problems are the second-most-common side effect reported in her database, after muscle pain. In a 2009 report in the journal Pharmacotherapy, Golomb described 171 patients who'd reported cognitive problems after taking statins."
Personally, I find that the majority of physicians that I have been have little or no idea on what warnings the FDA issues or what significant negative results have occurred after approval of a given drug. Test yours. Many still do not know how to use the Internet and have no idea of the communications patients around the globe are sharing.
Many people report it taking several years for the negative effects to wear off. Any thorough research into the affects of statins should begin with the reports of Beatrice A. Golomb, MD, PhD. An article in the Washington Post states:
"But these drugs are not without risks. Golomb has amassed thousands of reports at her Web site Statineffects.com, detailing adverse reactions from statins. She says that cognitive problems are the second-most-common side effect reported in her database, after muscle pain. In a 2009 report in the journal Pharmacotherapy, Golomb described 171 patients who'd reported cognitive problems after taking statins."
Personally, I find that the majority of physicians that I have been have little or no idea on what warnings the FDA issues or what significant negative results have occurred after approval of a given drug. Test yours. Many still do not know how to use the Internet and have no idea of the communications patients around the globe are sharing.
30
Yes, and some don't understand research and what research results mean.
2
There is such a simple solution: Give up all animal products and go plant-based. A few years ago Kaiser Permamente in California started advising its doctors to start prescribing plant-based diets to patients to cure many of their chronic diseases. There is a plethora of web-based sites on how to eat completely plant-based. So simple once you make the commitment. Start with the documentary Forks Over Knives. Then start visiting the web sites for the doctors in that film which will give you so much needed info. Then google vegan cooking and you will find so many sites to watch. A new one is the Happy Vegan Couple on Facebook. Get healthy, get rid of awful drugs, save money, be here for your children and grandchildren. You CAN do it!!
13
Not everyone can lower their cholesterol through diet. If your case is susceptible to dietary changes, hooray and how lucky for you. But do not condescend to other patients whose cholesterol level is unaffected by diet (or by body weight). Mind your business and let the rest of us mind ours.
6
Oh, god, spare me the hair shirt diets. Eating reasonably is one thing; everything in moderation, please.
2
There are things that are worse than death.
One of them is a fanatical vegan diet.
The documentary "Forks over Knives" is pure political propaganda -- think: Leni Riefenstahl and her film 'The Triumph of Will".
I am not interested in "food nazism".
One of them is a fanatical vegan diet.
The documentary "Forks over Knives" is pure political propaganda -- think: Leni Riefenstahl and her film 'The Triumph of Will".
I am not interested in "food nazism".
2
It is hard for me to understand, how the pharmacy industry can justify these incredibly high price points for drugs that have a very high demand as this new drug seems to have. More troubling, is the fact that countries with national healthcare never seem to pay anywhere near as much as we do in the US.
I am not a proponent of a national healthcare system. But I do not support the exorbitant prices these pharmaceutical companies are imposing on our health care system in the US.
I am not a proponent of a national healthcare system. But I do not support the exorbitant prices these pharmaceutical companies are imposing on our health care system in the US.
3
What can you expect, we have a for profit driven healthcare industry. Profit being the primary objective. All industrialized countries offer some variation of universal healthcare to their populations. Only we reject a single payer system as the most cost effective option which also yields the best health outcomes.
1
Big Pharma was successful in passing a law during W. Bush's administration that prohibited insurance companies from negotiating lower prices for drugs. The pharmaceutical lobby has been very successful in preventing U.S. consumers from obtaining reasonably-priced drugs.
2
Currently, the mind-set of patients is if the drugs are expensive that should be better. That is a very dangerous conclusion to come to considering most new drugs do not have available studies to compare presence or absence of possible side-effects. Another dangerous situation is the information available on the internet. If you peruse, you will notice every drug, no matter how innocuous will have every side-effect possible. Armed with this knowledge they confront their doctors with symptoms which they insist is due to the drug. Muscle pain is a known side-effect of statins which can be easily substituted by other studied drugs. But patients want the expensive one because the pharmaceuticals have gotten extremely smart in their advertising. People are putting themselves at great risk convinced the so called symptoms are due to the statins. Myocardial infarctions are a serious risk that patients can avoid by statins and their substitutes. Expensive does not equal better and no side-effects. It might just mean Expensive. Period.
4
I won't consider taking anything that hasn't been on the market long enough to be evaluated by a long history. But I'm in pretty good health but for joint pain.
I'm disgusted shilling of such pain meds as Celebrex (before, Vioxx, now banned) which are profitable under patent and may kill you even if you take as prescribed versus the opiates I have taken for pain at the same dose for 8 years without incident. These meds have been solving pain since man got up on two legs and cannot harm you if taken as prescribed. Drug companies are behind the latests "war" on opiate pain meds as it costs $5 for 90 pills versus whatever the cost of the current patented pain med, Because of the shrill propaganda war against opiates, they've made them harder for responsible patients to obtain, the goal of Pharma. THe stats on overdoses do not move me as drug addicts don't need expensive (on the street) pills when they have easy access to heroin.
I'm disgusted shilling of such pain meds as Celebrex (before, Vioxx, now banned) which are profitable under patent and may kill you even if you take as prescribed versus the opiates I have taken for pain at the same dose for 8 years without incident. These meds have been solving pain since man got up on two legs and cannot harm you if taken as prescribed. Drug companies are behind the latests "war" on opiate pain meds as it costs $5 for 90 pills versus whatever the cost of the current patented pain med, Because of the shrill propaganda war against opiates, they've made them harder for responsible patients to obtain, the goal of Pharma. THe stats on overdoses do not move me as drug addicts don't need expensive (on the street) pills when they have easy access to heroin.
1
The difference between a good product and a great product is a great product needs to be repurchased often. Statins are a great product on many levels, only one of which is the standard recommendation that everyone be put on them and that it be for a lifetime.
The other aspect is that by making it difficult or even impossible to get proper exercise due to the muscle pain and neuralgia that many statin patients experience, statins remove the one proven way of both adjusting cholesterol to levels that are healthy and the best way to prevent heart disease. What a win for the pharmaceutical industry, but, sadly, not for their patients.
The other aspect is that by making it difficult or even impossible to get proper exercise due to the muscle pain and neuralgia that many statin patients experience, statins remove the one proven way of both adjusting cholesterol to levels that are healthy and the best way to prevent heart disease. What a win for the pharmaceutical industry, but, sadly, not for their patients.
212
Here are a few rules how to lower cholesterol without drugs: 1) Eat more omega-3 oils and consume CoQ10 2) Eat more avocados, nuts and seeds, and olive oil 3) Eliminate from foods TRANS fats (hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated fats) 4) Provide yourself with magnesium 5) Reduce the consumption of sugar 6) Eat more soluble fiber, take probiotics and probiotics 7) Take vitamin D3 8) Eat more blue, purple and red fruits 9) Exercise, rest, smile more...
138
Anton good advice. Many patients, like me, after undertaking your suggestions, still find that our cholesterol levels are too high. High levels of cholesterol run in my family. My last resort was to take a regime of Lipitor and then eventually I switched to a generic statin. I do, however, experience some of the symptoms mentioned in the article namely: sore muscles, light pain and fatigue. As a runner, I am especially sensitive to these symptoms and do not believe they are psychosomatic.
6
None of those rules is bad, but be assured that they don't work for a lot of people. Statins do work, really they do. Being a dietary faddist is not necessarily a solution.
I was experiencing muscle pain when I first started taking a statin drug. I mentioned this to a good friend, who is also an academic pharmacologist at UNC, and he said that statins interfere with the natural production of CoQ10 by the body and suggested taking a CoQ10 supplement, which I did. The pain went away and has never returned. This was over 15 years ago.
If I'd had a heart attack and statins cause so much pain I couldn't get up the stairs, I'd try the inexpensive alternative with no side effects: Vegetarian diet. Just sayin'.
11
Suzanne: eating candy all day could be considered a vegetarian diet. It's more important to eat a HEALTHY diet, whether or not it includes meat.
3
Sad to say, that "inexpensive alternative" doesn't work for a lot of folks.
1
And if the vegetarian diet isn't helping, try Dr. Esselstyn's no-added-fat vegan diet.
So, there is a BIG mismatch between clinical trial results and patient reported symptoms, and going along with patients will cost mega-bucks. Doctors will be judged based upon patient satisfaction and internet surveys. It looks like the Mayo Clinic doc will say yes to these super-costly drugs whenever a patient demands one. Medicine has become a popularity contest for doctors, based on giving people what they think they want, not what they need.
2
Hasn't anyone ever heard of Red Yeast Rice, a natural statin? You also may be advised to take Co Q10 as you should with all statins but it is available in health food stores at a minimal cost. Please research. Thanks.
3
The "natural statin" found in red yeast rice must be removed before it can be sold in the U.S., so it is not found in supplements. Red yeast rice containing the statin can be found in some Chinese supermarkets, but not in supplement form. But just because it is natural doesn't mean it won't cause the same side effects.
6
Works fine for me.
1
My accountant suffered incredibly severe adverse effects from this "natural" statin. Lovastatin, isn't it? Except delivered in uncontrolled and varying dosages.
I took statins for years, which lowered my ldl from 240 to 180.
I had also read a comprehensive article in the Times about the effects of sugar and the havoc it wreaks on the endocrine system due to the liver's metabolism of sucrose.
At 5'10" and 195 I was also carry excess body fat. So: I quit sugar altogether, went on a restricted calorie diet and dropped 20 pounds in two months. I also quit the statins; remarkably my cholesterol is now 180 without any drugs.
The NYT article "Is Sugar Toxic" (by Gary Taubes April 13, 2011) changed my life. You don't necessarily need drugs if you just do the right thing for yourself.
I had also read a comprehensive article in the Times about the effects of sugar and the havoc it wreaks on the endocrine system due to the liver's metabolism of sucrose.
At 5'10" and 195 I was also carry excess body fat. So: I quit sugar altogether, went on a restricted calorie diet and dropped 20 pounds in two months. I also quit the statins; remarkably my cholesterol is now 180 without any drugs.
The NYT article "Is Sugar Toxic" (by Gary Taubes April 13, 2011) changed my life. You don't necessarily need drugs if you just do the right thing for yourself.
98
Thomas, do you drink alcohol? I am wondering, as I have borderline high cholesterol and do not plan to take statins. I don't want to give up my light alcohol use.
1
Jane,
I don't drink alcohol, but I don't think that has any bearing on the issue if you're a light drinker. If you are interested, read the article. It was an education on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html
I don't drink alcohol, but I don't think that has any bearing on the issue if you're a light drinker. If you are interested, read the article. It was an education on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html
Taubes has been telling big Pharma and big agri-business what it doesn't want to hear for years. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-f...
The day is coming when it will be considered malpractice not to tell a patient that cholesterol levels can be lowered and heart disease can be reversed on a whole food, plant-based diet (see studies by Dean Ornish, MD and Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr., MD). That's too extreme, we're told--but cracking open someone's chest to perform a coronary bypass isn't? That's too hard for the patient, we're told--but injecting Praluent isn't? And the only side effects are a reduction in the risk of autoimmune disease, diabetes, and cancer (including prostate cancer, guys--in a study of early prostate cancer patients by Dr. Dean Ornish, PSA levels declined in those on a plant-based diet and rose in the control group). For more on the health benefits of a vegan diet, watch "Forks Over Knives" and the brand-new "PlantPure Nation"; and visit forksoverknives.com, plantpurenation.com, heartattackproof.com, nutritionfacts.org, and pcrm.org.
47
I'm very fortunate in that I've never had an issue with my cholesterol or blood pressure (knock wood). But I have a relative (an MD, by the way, so pretty knowledgeable and with easy access to other experts) who struggles constantly and usually unsuccessfully to keep his cholesterol where his cardiologist wants it. He's meticulous about his diet, bikes to work, etc... but both his father and grandfather died of heart disease. As you can imagine, this is a worry for him. The reality is that some of us have genes that make it easy to develop heart problems, just like some of us are more susceptible to other issues. Something we all live with.
But what makes that worse is people like you who believe and lecture to the rest of us that if we all just "eat right" and/or "work out right" then all our health problems will be solved and we'll die in our sleep at 95. It's incredibly obnoxious and not helpful in the least. If you want you share about what helped *YOU* lower *YOUR* cholesterol, that's great. But assuming what worked for you is going to work for everyone? Not ok.
But what makes that worse is people like you who believe and lecture to the rest of us that if we all just "eat right" and/or "work out right" then all our health problems will be solved and we'll die in our sleep at 95. It's incredibly obnoxious and not helpful in the least. If you want you share about what helped *YOU* lower *YOUR* cholesterol, that's great. But assuming what worked for you is going to work for everyone? Not ok.
10
Terry Shintani, M.D., is getting similar results on a 10-day no-added-oil vegan program he runs many times a year in Honolulu. Cholesterol and high blood pressure drop in most, Type 2 diabetics reduce or stop insulin due to the large drops in glucose levels, and people are surprised they do not feel hungry because they can eat as much as they want of the allowable foods (including potatoes and whole grains).
1
Doesn't work for many people is the simple answer.
3
Why is it that the new products that BIGpharma comes up with benefits only the super rich? We all have paid into their obscene profit margins. "Private profits (new improved pill) and socialize losses (old cheaper pill w/bad side effects)" takes on a new meaning.
4
When did statins first go on the market, and how much did they cost per year back then? I'd like to compare that with the pricing of the newer drugs. Also, the new drugs require injections. They are not pills.
1
Lipitor was quite expensive when it was new, but not anything like $14K a year. More like a couple hundred a month.
1
Why, exactly. Are the station alternatives so expensive? How much could they possibly cost to manufacture?
Sounds like a simpler case of pharmaceutical companies' greed. What else is new?
Sounds like a simpler case of pharmaceutical companies' greed. What else is new?
13
If pricing were simply based on manufacturing costs, then where would the incentive come from to research and develop new drugs?
Who is going to pay for the research and development required to bring this drug to market?
You?
Who is going to pay for the research and development required to bring this drug to market?
You?
1
Aargh - autocorrect! "Why, exactly, are ... " and "simple."
Manufacturing costs have nothing to do with pricing. The most expensive part of the drug development process is the R&D and clinical trials, which take 10-15 years and hundreds of researchers.
1
"their LDL, the dangerous cholesterol"
Not quite. LDL used to be referred to as the "so called bad cholesterol." It appears that the drug companies have now convinced the media that LDL is all bad. But that is not the case. The basic cholesterol tests measure three things: HDL, TGs, and total. Then using a calculation, LDL is derived. This is based on the false assumption that there are only three kinds of cholesterol. Not true! As has been pointed out by many, LDL has two major components: small dense, which is bad, and large fluffy, which is benign.
The LDL components can be measured with a VAP test. The insurance companies will not pay for it. But one can estimate the breakdown by comparing the HDL and TGs numbers. If the HDL number is greater than the TGs number, then the LDL will be mostly large fluffy. Making the LDL calculated number kind of irrelevant in such a situation.
Of course, in order to sell their stains, which only lower LDL, they push LDL as the most important number to look at.
How does one get their HDL to be greater than their TGs? If you know that HDL is raised by consumption of saturated fat (and exercise), and TGs are raised by consumption of carbohydrates, then the answer is simple. Go on a low carb, higher fat diet. (Not higher in industrial seed oils, which promote inflammation.)
Not quite. LDL used to be referred to as the "so called bad cholesterol." It appears that the drug companies have now convinced the media that LDL is all bad. But that is not the case. The basic cholesterol tests measure three things: HDL, TGs, and total. Then using a calculation, LDL is derived. This is based on the false assumption that there are only three kinds of cholesterol. Not true! As has been pointed out by many, LDL has two major components: small dense, which is bad, and large fluffy, which is benign.
The LDL components can be measured with a VAP test. The insurance companies will not pay for it. But one can estimate the breakdown by comparing the HDL and TGs numbers. If the HDL number is greater than the TGs number, then the LDL will be mostly large fluffy. Making the LDL calculated number kind of irrelevant in such a situation.
Of course, in order to sell their stains, which only lower LDL, they push LDL as the most important number to look at.
How does one get their HDL to be greater than their TGs? If you know that HDL is raised by consumption of saturated fat (and exercise), and TGs are raised by consumption of carbohydrates, then the answer is simple. Go on a low carb, higher fat diet. (Not higher in industrial seed oils, which promote inflammation.)
38
How can you know all this? Are you an MD?
My cardiologist, when I asked about triglyceride/HDL ratio (mine was .7) and HDL/LDL (mine was .32) told me that the science wasn't there yet.
He also said the science regarding large fluffy/dense BB LDL wasn't there.
He said there was no test for predisposition to statin damage from simvastatin.
He said some folks think statins should be in the water supply.
He said statins are the reason Americans live longer now.
I took 20 mg simvastatin for 7 months, and now I can't walk.
He says this has nothing to do with statins.
Please inform me if any of his assertions are actually correct.
My cardiologist, when I asked about triglyceride/HDL ratio (mine was .7) and HDL/LDL (mine was .32) told me that the science wasn't there yet.
He also said the science regarding large fluffy/dense BB LDL wasn't there.
He said there was no test for predisposition to statin damage from simvastatin.
He said some folks think statins should be in the water supply.
He said statins are the reason Americans live longer now.
I took 20 mg simvastatin for 7 months, and now I can't walk.
He says this has nothing to do with statins.
Please inform me if any of his assertions are actually correct.
Here's a novel idea -- have universal single-payer coverage and negotiate drug prices paid by that coverage.
Of course that is not novel, it is an old idea. But impossible to implement because our Presidents and Congresses are owned by Big Pharma and the rest of the entrenched, expensive, exclusionary system. Given the way the United States embraces cupidity and stupidity, I doubt that any of us alive will ever see an effective single-payer system.
Of course that is not novel, it is an old idea. But impossible to implement because our Presidents and Congresses are owned by Big Pharma and the rest of the entrenched, expensive, exclusionary system. Given the way the United States embraces cupidity and stupidity, I doubt that any of us alive will ever see an effective single-payer system.
260
I favor single payer too, but in fact you don't have to have it to lower many drug prices. If Medicare D were permitted to negotiate with the drug companies, drug prices would be a lot lower.
6
You'll see it if you emigrate to Canada, Europe, Australia, or New Zealand. The US is ruled by corporations.
2
We have that here and very expensive drugs are still very expensive. Sorry.
One cannot rely on clinical trial data to reflect a true indication of side effect risk. Industry sponsored studies are not incentivized to reveal all side effects, some of which live outside clinical trials; longitudinal studies are often too short to realize the side effects that emerge over time; drug-drug effects are common and many published trials were developed to minimize those confounding variables, post fda approval -release data on side effects are self-reported and underestimating the true prevalence; and we know many people might have metabolic-mitochondrial DNA predispositions that heighten their risk for side effects. These meds TURN OFF a critical liver enzyme whose job it is to produce cholesterol, one of the most important molecules in human biology-(think brain and nervous system, vitamin D, hormones e.g. sex hormones, cortisol, ect. For the last 2.5 million years, we have evolved to place great survival advantage of the function of HMG-Co A reductase, the enzyme that allows us to manufacture this important biological substrate to be produced and on a vast scope we are administering statins that turn this function off.
Forget what the studies have published with respect to side effects and do the N=1. How do you feel on them? How do feel off of them? Is there a difference? That is more important than any published data. If there is a difference, work with a provider who can help you develop an alternative integrative-holistic strategy for self-care.
Forget what the studies have published with respect to side effects and do the N=1. How do you feel on them? How do feel off of them? Is there a difference? That is more important than any published data. If there is a difference, work with a provider who can help you develop an alternative integrative-holistic strategy for self-care.
175
The vast majority of modern medicines work by interfering with some biochemical process in our bodies. They have performed miracles in improving our lives.
("Nature" didn't intend me to be typing this reply on my iPad either. So what?)
("Nature" didn't intend me to be typing this reply on my iPad either. So what?)
1
RS - The question is whether the interference enhances our lives or damages them. In many cases--iPads among them--they can do both and it is up to us to decide which is more important to us. In the case of medications, we add in some other issues because the "good" results from interference may be visible while the "bad" results are not until it is too late. Or perhaps we will be aware of both the good and the bad but will need to choose which is more important in our lives based on issues of life or death. To do the latter we need good, unbiased information. The benefits of a statin for a middle-aged man who has already had a heart attack will most likely outweigh any side effects. The same is probably not true for someone who has never had a heart attack and who has not been diagnosed with CVD--but many doctors will nevertheless insist that the patient must take statins.
Having seen the drug industry from the inside let me articulate a different view. As a company you actually do want all the adverse events to come out in trials. Especially the serious ones. The sooner a drug candidate is terminated, the less money you have invested in it. I have seen billion dollar drugs pulled from the market at the barest hint of serious cardiovascular events.
I do not say this to incite peoples ire but simply to point out that there are certainly cases where good ethics actually make good business sense and the right decisions are made.
I do not say this to incite peoples ire but simply to point out that there are certainly cases where good ethics actually make good business sense and the right decisions are made.
4
I take a statin. Generic. simvastatin. I take 40 mg. per day. I had a problem when I first too statins over 20 mg. Then my doctor (who has retired) and my new doctror prescribed COQ10 (300 mg) and Fish oil( 4800 mg.) per day as soon as I take the statin. No problem at all. After ingesting the cocktail, I eat a teaspoon of peanut butter or any other fatty food (small amt) to allow the fish oil and COQ10 to dissolve as both are fat soluble, not water soluble. I did the same when I was prescribed 80 mg but that Rx is no longer needed. That and a good diet has lowered my LDL (weight loss and less stress) also helps. Please talk to your doctor before following this regime.
1
I took Lipitor for about a year and a half after cardiac bypass surgery. During that time I developed serious muscle pain in my legs and back. I stopped taking the drug and the pain disappeared. I guess since there are no side effects I must be delusional. Oh wait, I also was suddenly able to remember the name of just about every actor on TV.
In sum, be very, very careful of clinical trials on drugs. Who pays, who is the population and who did the study.
In sum, be very, very careful of clinical trials on drugs. Who pays, who is the population and who did the study.
92
COQ10 and Fish oil stopped my leg pains. However, that being said, Lipitor was the worst of the statins. And my first doctor was pushing that because, he like many others was getting big bucks from Big Pharma as well as kickbacks from specialists who took some of his patients for specialized problems.
4
When you have 25% of people on Statins complaining of side effects that cause them to give up the medication, and are free of the discomfort and pain associated with the drug--when no longer taking it. This would appear to be a very powerful message. The implied desire to ignore this fact by some researchers is egregious. Speaking from personal experience the pain, discomfort, and difficulty in walking because of the muscle cramps is very real, as well as the increased fatigue. The only relief I had occurred when I stopped taking the drug. There is nothing subtle about the statistics or patient response to the drug!
419
Thank you, Dr. Solomon! One of the great frustrations of being a patient who is hypersensitive to ALL medications is the skepticism with which my reports of side effects are often met.
It is somehow easier for physicians to imply and believe that one is hypochondriacal or neurotic than to give credence to "anecdotal" reports by patients. I was just put on a new statin after many years of refusing to take them after horrible side effects, and I did not in any way connect my sudden memory problems and depression with the drugs at all, until yesterday when my lights went on. My cardiologist will not be pleased when he next hears from me, but I am ready to try anything EXCEPT these medications.
It is somehow easier for physicians to imply and believe that one is hypochondriacal or neurotic than to give credence to "anecdotal" reports by patients. I was just put on a new statin after many years of refusing to take them after horrible side effects, and I did not in any way connect my sudden memory problems and depression with the drugs at all, until yesterday when my lights went on. My cardiologist will not be pleased when he next hears from me, but I am ready to try anything EXCEPT these medications.
4
I agree. I was started on Lipitor a decade or more ago to lower my LDL. The impact on my energy level and cognition was remarkably negative. Not subtle at all. Even my wife asked me what was wrong. Since nothing else in my (our) life/diet had changed I suspected the Lipitor. I'm a scientist so I decided to do a nonrigorous but nonetheless useful test for me: I stopped taking the Lipitor to the consternation of my MD. After 1 month I felt much better and after 2 months I felt "normal". I restarted the Lipitor and regressed back to the same unsavory state. I stopped the Lipitor again and the negative effects went away. My MD switched me to simvastatin (20 mg) and the side effects did not appear. I've been on simvastatin for a decade or more. Why? Who knows? I suspect that our individual body biochemisrty tips us one way or another for just about everyhting. I've always been surprised that the clinical trials of these drugs do not show this effect. But any clinical trial is designed to measure only those indicators deemed necessary to get the drug past the FDA and out the door. if you don't ask the right questions, you won't make the key observations and won't collect the needed data.
9
On the one hand, yes 25% of patients is high, but on the other hand, the nocebo effect is a thing, and a documentedly powerful thing at that. I think the conflict that is set up by the article fully addresses your concern. 25% is high, and you simply can't ignore your patient's own complaints, BUT semi-randomized controlled trials have shown that statins don't cause muscle pains or cognitive impairments at the rate at which patients are describing. There's no easy answer because it is as the article says: the new drug costs 14k/yr and that is genuinely not sustainable. On the individual level, it's not acceptable to deny treatment, but at the population level, the price is not manageable. I do believe there are subtleties to the statistics and patient response to statins. And you will do harm, either to your patient, or to the healthcare system at large, if you don't strive for a way to address that.
A woman who has breast cancer, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, and heart disease says statins are causing her to have trouble climbing stairs?
57
0nly when she takes statins
1
Well, my uncle who has none of those problems had crippling leg pain, fatigue and weakness while taking Lipitor and was told by his cardiologist that it was "in his head".
11
I took statins for a couple of years, and I was in my early 50s then, and had no cancer, no MS, no osteoporosis nor heart disease (just borderline high cholesterol readings). I developed the SAME leg pains and muscle weaknesses. They stopped when I stopped taking the statins. My doctor changed the type of statin several times; each time it reoccurred and went away when I stopped taking the statins.
I'm sorry, but I don't trust the clinical trials. Statins are insanely profitable for Big Pharma, and they would do ANYTHING to get every single person taking them for life.
I'm sorry, but I don't trust the clinical trials. Statins are insanely profitable for Big Pharma, and they would do ANYTHING to get every single person taking them for life.
6
The 25% self reported side effect rate appears too high to be ignored, despite the randomized trials. Perhaps the patients with the statin associatedside effects should be enrolled in a randomized trial comparing the new medications to the statins, for efficacy as measured by long term servival, and for both acute and chronic tolerability.
13
These drugs are a miracle. Everyone who needs them should get them
I think it's a bit premature to call these new drugs a miracle. I've been taking statins for 17 years with none of the severe or even mild side-effects people are reporting here. And my LDL has dropped considerably from where it was when I began.
I for one won't be in any hurry to switch from an effective and extremely inexpensive medication (last 90 day supply cost me less than a dollar) to a very expensive one that just got approved within the last couple of weeks.
Some here imply that statins, which are taken by one in four Americans every day, haven't been adequately tested. By this standard, these new drugs have barely been tested at all. I believe I'll wait a while.
I for one won't be in any hurry to switch from an effective and extremely inexpensive medication (last 90 day supply cost me less than a dollar) to a very expensive one that just got approved within the last couple of weeks.
Some here imply that statins, which are taken by one in four Americans every day, haven't been adequately tested. By this standard, these new drugs have barely been tested at all. I believe I'll wait a while.
7
Best is Red Yeast Rice, the natural source of statins Its been used in china for 1000 years, FDA and big pharma wants to kill it, they come with all kind of excuses
Statins do cause vicious and long lasting muscle spasms in many patients and it is associated with memory problems in some patients. The spasms reduce over a year of more. Interestingly, statins help control a disease where a protein to memory is overproduced and causes a serious and rare disorder. But one must remember that the effects of cardio vascular disease are permanent and profound. The muscle problems that can result from statins which the physicians worry about are rare but potentially fatal ones that blood tests can reveal being developed, which they do monitor. The risks of cramps, losses of memory, and of increased risks of diabetes are far less onerous that stroke and heart attack, and the doctors are willing to allow patients to endure a lot before they are willing to do anything that might fail to prevent the latter conditions.