New meta-analysis below.
About 11 years ago my doctor offered me a statin for my "high" cholesterol, which had just risen a little above 200. I refused. I felt that the case against cholesterol was simplistic & that a complex subject had been reduced to one villain - LDL cholesterol.
On Monday, I was amused to read of the failure of the Evacetrapib trial:
"... specialists were stunned by the results of a study of 12,000 patients, announced on Sunday at the American College of Cardiology’s annual meeting: There was no benefit from taking the drug, evacetrapib. The drug’s maker, Eli Lilly, stopped the study in October, citing futility, but it was not until Sunday’s meeting that cardiologists first saw the data behind that decision.
"Participants taking the drug saw their LDL levels fall to an average of 55 milligrams per deciliter from 84. Their HDL levels rose to an average of 104 milligram per deciliter from 46. Yet 256 participants had heart attacks, compared with 255 patients in the group who were taking a placebo."
“We had an agent that seemed to do all the right things,” said Dr. Stephen J. Nicholls, the study’s principal investigator and the deputy director of the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute in Adelaide. “It’s the most mind-boggling question. How can a drug that lowers something that is associated with benefit not show any benefit?” he said ..."
“All of us would have put money on it,” said Dr. Peter Libby, a Harvard cardiologist. The drug, he said, “was the great hope.”
nytimes.com/2016/04/04/heal...
It would appear that Nicholls & Libby and all of the other stunned specialists have to rethink the ABCs of cholesterol & cardio health.
In 2008, more than 50% of Americans aged 65-74 were using a statin, & the percentage was rising. Presumably on the advice of the same specialists.
In the other corner, there are people like Mercola talking about the dire dangers of statins on their sites.
Anyway, leery of the appetite of PCa cells for cholesterol, I began using Simvastatin. It's a bit awkward for a skeptic turned user to discuss the topic with men who seem to fear statins more than Lupron. After all, there is something a little crazy about more than half the men my age needing to be on a statin.
But, regardless of what Dr. Mercola says, the PCa statistis are compelling. In the new paper:
"In total, 13 studies that enrolled 100,536 participants were included in this meta-analysis."
"Results showed that prediagnostic statin use had a significantly lower risk of both all-cause mortality {a 44% reduction}"
"and PCa-specific mortality {a 47% reduction}"
"Similarly, postdiagnostic statin use was correlated with reductions in both {all-cause mortality - a 23% reduction}"
"and {PCa-specific mortality - a 36% reduction}"
-Patrick
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/270...
Onco Targets Ther. 2016 Mar 21;9:1689-1696.
Statin use and mortality of patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.
Meng Y1, Liao YB2, Xu P1, Wei WR1, Wang J1.
Author information
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of statin use on the mortality of patients with prostate cancer (PCa).
METHODS:
An electronic search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases from inception to August 2015 was performed to find eligible studies. Articles investigating the association between statin use and mortality of PCa were identified. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models.
RESULTS:
In total, 13 studies that enrolled 100,536 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Results showed that prediagnostic statin use had a significantly lower risk of both all-cause mortality (ACM; HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38-0.83) and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36-0.77). Similarly, postdiagnostic statin use was correlated with reductions in both ACM (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69-0.87) and PCSM (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.79). When stratified by primary treatment, postdiagnostic use of statins had a 0.4-fold lower risk of ACM in patients with PCa who were treated with local therapy; both pre- and postdiagnostic use of statins was correlated with a significantly lower risk of PCSM in patients who were treated with androgen deprivation therapy.
CONCLUSION:
Both pre- and postdiagnostic use of statins is associated with better overall survival and PCa-specific survival. This suggests a need for randomized controlled trials of statins in patients with PCa.
KEYWORDS:
all-cause mortality; prostate cancer; prostate cancer-specific mortality; statins
PMID: 27051303 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]