Could I have any opinions on taking Statins My GP is recommending I start taking them I was really upset when he said that If I didn't take them that my risk of heart attack or stoke would go up by 40% in the next ten years I am 72 My BP is quite good I have just started taking 5 mg of amlodipine at night No other medication This has made me really stressed any advice would be very much appreciated
Statins Worried: Could I have any... - Atrial Fibrillati...
Statins Worried
Written by
heartbeat4
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Read more about...
105 Replies
•
Are you able to give us the results of your cholesterol test? You can ask your doctors surgery for the results if you don't know them, or even look them up through the NHS app.
He said it was 6,5 over all
I would ask if I could try to reduce that number myself before agreeing to statins. Exercise and low fat spreads like ProActive are two things I know that can help. I've never had high cholesterol so don't know everything that can lower it, but do use that spread and have done for years. My sister uses an indoor exercising machine to reduce hers.
Jean
Hi
I presume the reason your GP wants you to go on statins is because your cholesterol is quite raised.
I have been on statins for many years. I am 72 now. However. I have been feeling a bit unwell for several months & I thought perhaps it may have been side effects. My GP suggested that I come off them for 6 weeks to see if I noticed any difference. I had a blood test after the 6 weeks. When my GP got the results he rang me to say that my cholesterol had shot up to 8 (normal for me is 5) which is still quite high. He said I would have to go back on the statins. Following a low fat diet makes no difference to my cholesterol. I have family history of heart disease. Unfortunately statins were not around when my father was alive, if there had been I am sure he would have lived for a few more years. He passed away at 63.
I don’t think the statins were causing me any side effects. What is your reason for not wanting to take them?
BobDVolunteer
Interesting as the last thread on statins was taken down! This may be because it is a highly emotive subject but lets try again.
I took statins for many years without question unitil leg pains made me realise that they were not always helpful. Then I discovered something called QOF-- quality outcome framework on which doctors pay is calculated and includes a number of strategies where GPs have to have conversations with patients. Statins is one of those, hence so many doctors insisting that patients take them. The fact is that it is the conversatioan that counts not the taking of statins as my GP readily accepted and told me so maybe some honesty would help you to make up your mind.
There are a number of members here I know share my views but what annoys me is the almost blackmail and scare mongering approach your GP has taken. I am quite sure that for some people statins can be helpful but please, for the right reasons!
Balancing well on those eggshells Bob… 👏
in reply to Elli86
Ahhh, nice to see you back!!
Hello Elli
Hi singwell! I’m back! 🤣 much to some people’s dismay I’m sure
No dismay - We've missed your deft wittism and opinion!!
🤣 thanks nick! Don’t see you much around here anymore though? You must be thriving now?
All good - no episodes since ablation over 2 years ago - local doctor is slow to take me off or reduce bisop further. Due a referral soon to take it to 1.25 from 2.50. How are you doing??
I started to reply to the reply below espousing how much doctors know and how we should believe everything they tell us. But I stopped myself just in time, otherwise this post would be removed too!
So you urge everyone in the UK to follow UK guidelines on thinners and trust their doctors, but on the statin issue, quite a different story!
Sounds like you pick and choose when to follow guidelines and doctor's recommendations based on your own bias per topic and btw statins have been shown not only to reduce heart attacks but also to reduce the risk of strokes in selected populations.
Should I hypothetically post something about questioning doctors motives on prescribing thinners, no doubt my post would be deleted!
Jim
in reply to mjames1
I understand the logic of your argument Jim but there is a subtle difference here. Most of us encourage AF patients to follow the advice of their EP or Cardiologist because they are the specialists in their field, not their GP.
The specialist advice is clear and follows the guidance given by NICE and it’s conclusive, which is why we tend to share it with forum members. I don’t know if there is a cholesterol forum on HUL, but if there is it would be interesting to know what they have to say about it there. I had some experience of the thyroid forum and they certainly favoured following specialist advice over that of their GP. Sadly no system is perfect, we just do the best we can to protect the interest of those who seek help….l.
mjames1 in reply to
"understand the logic of your argument Jim but there is a subtle difference here."
---
Thanks for chiming in, but sorry, much too subtle for me.
I just see a bias and it's not limited to one person, where people spout stats and guidelines when supporting their preconceived notions, but ignore them when they don't.
It's called confirmation bias, and everyone is susceptible to it, we just have to be aware.
Jim
in reply to mjames1
🥱
The difference here is that there is nothing you can do to stop blood clots with AF and anticoagulants are needed as we have a high risk of a stroke. I would change my lifestyle and diet before l would even consider taking statins. You cannot do anything in this respect to prevent blood clots. You have listed the advantages of taking statins that you know of. I have heard of lots of disadvantages and reasons not to take them, but not allowed to say. Please don’t criticise people that have had a bad experience and have been honest when asked for their opinion. It is a personal decision and we all need to know the full facts.
Cavalierrubie: I would change my lifestyle and diet before l would even consider taking statins... I have heard of lots of disadvantages and reasons not to take them, but not allowed to say
------------------------
So would I, but unfortunately, like many, my LDL is both diet and exercise resistant.
And of course there can be disadvantages to taking statins, such as muscular pain and even a potential diabetes risk -- not sure why you think you aren't allowed to say that -- however, not everyone gets the side effects and if they do then it's making a decision on risk versus rewards.
I'm not criticizing anyone for their opinion on statins, I was just pointing out that it's somewhat disingenuous to make a strong case for following your doctor's advice and medical guidelines and then use it selectively for different conditions.
Jim
Just chiming in here Jim. I didn't read Bob's response that way. Why, because interpreting cholesterol results takes a bit of digging. And some GPs don't do that unless challenged. My overall cholesterol for example is 6.2, which makes my Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factor quite high when you add gender, age and AF into the calculation. My LDL however is not over the benchmark- it's my 'good cholesterol' - HDL that's high. And my triglycerides are heroic. So together with my GP we decided statins are not called for at this point and agreed to revisit later. For me - a more nuanced decision than the one about anticoagulants.
Thinners are also included in QOF. So same argument can be made. I'm glad your statin discussion with your doctor was a nuanced one. So is my thinner discussion with my cardiologist.
Jim
As you know different approaches here. Similarly in Australia I think. I guess in this forum, since AFA is involved that to an extent they're obliged to not contradict accepted NICE guidelines. I can see both sides. Had a longish chat with my Arrythmia Nurse last week about my weight and HASBLED score. She's open minded but fed back to me - likely not needing to reduce dose till you're 80...
I've always felt that "guidelines" are just that. Usually a good starting point (guide) for you and your doctor to add and subtract individual variables. Sounds like that is what you did. My gripe is that some here hold up guidelines as gospel (thinners for example) when it suits their bias and then find fault with them when it doesn't (statins here). Can't have it both ways! Enuf said for me on this topic but I'm glad you worked things out. Thinners and Statins were among my two hardest shared medication decisions. I don't feel 100% comfortable with either decision, but I think that's ok because there was no black and white path for either as I saw it. Risks and rewards for both, but a decisions had to be made.
Jim
Yes, judgement call. That's why a forum like this is helpful. There's always people who have useful insights and experiences to share. Plus links to information you can check out. I've just been entertaining myself for instance reading about red yeast rice.
It's the same as a statin, but I think a lot of people feel better about it because you can buy it in a "health food" store vs a pharmacy 
Jim
A bit similar here - although statins have never been suggested. Despite permanent A Fib. I can’t help but wonder if they are slightly different in when they prescribe these in Scotland.
My cholesterol was 5.3 at one point, but HDL higher and ratio fine. Last reading was back to 4.5.
Perhaps when I reach the big 70 it might come up, who knows. I will likely cross that bridge when I come to it I guess.
5.3 is a perfectly acceptable figure. Mine was 6.2 at the last count. But I'm hoping that as my hypothyroidism is stabilised, this will change. My BPs improved so I live in hope!
That’s good that your hypothyroidism has stabilised. I’m lucky with BP as it’s always been on the low side. Though sometimes I think that detecting the AFib took longer due to other measures being good. (Having a grumpy day today, as it’s exactly a year since I went into the never-ending episode of AFib. Went to A&E with a letter from cardiology saying that if Flecainide PIP didn’t work within 6 hours I was to go for a DCCV. They just gave more Flec and sent me home in lower rate AFib. Mostly I try to be upbeat about it all, but the memories came flooding back. Likelihood is that I would have ended up in the same situation anyway, but there’s always the ‘what if’!)
Not a happy anniversary for you - I sympathise! Supposedly we noticed it less when it's persistent. I've spoken to a number of people.who say this. Hopefully that'll.be you too in due course- your body will adapt.
Already happened really, so it surprised me how I reacted today!
I hear you. I remember my first episode, and all the times I was blue lighted to hospital because of it... Its natural to mourn the loss of the 'innocence' of good health that maybe we once took for granted.
Very well explained Bob. Thank you. So it's not whether or not you take the statins, it's that they can demonstrate they had the conversation. And this QOF was put in place during the Blair government I think?
At times it’s all about how you say it,,and this applies to doctors too,,,my husband’s cardiologist keeps reminding him every visit that at age 79 he now has a one in four chance of having a heart attack ,,and this is why he needs to not question his doctor’s advice,,,and my hubby (having a doctorate in math and being a former college prof) reminds him in return that this also means he has a three in four chance of not having a heart attack! And so there is a stalemate,,,at least,, the doctor smiles before he sits quietly and contemplates a comeback! P S the statin issue has yet to be resolved between them
Hdev, your husband should read 'the intelligence trap'.My younger brother was the same until he died about 4 years ago at 73 of a heart attack while doing his usual hill climb.
His masters degree got in the way, imo.
I've always questioned statins (and always will) but I have taken them for about 20 years so far.
One points is if you have side effects be sure to test and evaluate what could be causing them.
The other point is, with your cardiologist's agreement, you can try altering or reducing and testing for confirmation.
Hi Heartbeat4, Epidemiologic studies clearly indicate the contribution taking statins can make in reducing strokes and clot related cardiovascular problems. I didn't go to the doctor for 6 years, no obvious reason to, and had a stroke at 70. Although my cholesterol levels are low I'm on statins now. Having had one stroke the risk of a second stroke goes up. Remember risk is not an individual risk, it's a population risk for people like you. The odds nevertheless are more likely to happen than winning the lottery. I don't buy lottery tickets but I take my statins until I'm advised otherwise. But, looking after your cardiovascular system is something you could also have been advised on. I thought I was healthy enough in comparison with my peers. Worrying about my health was very debilitating in the month after my stroke. It wasn't helping and I felt the 'take it steady ' advice pouring at me from all fronts wasn't helping and I could feel my level of mobility etc declining. So I started a stricter exercise regime. 18 months on I'm fitter and healthier than I imagined possible and very smug too, with a strong danger of hubris!
However, follow up checks 9 months later, revealed some blood anomalies which on investigation for possible liver problems revealed a significant gallstone problem, again unbeknown to me. A simple key hole operation procedure turned into a full open surgery operation on the table following complications in theatre. Several hours later than planned in post op recovery I was told it was a good job I was fit!
Further checks have now detected Afib which might explain my stroke and again I am on new medication.
These Doctor's know a thing or two and it's a very brave person who chooses to ignore their advice. They may have challenging work conditions but the evidence suggests they are much more likely to get things right.
But you know a thing or two about your body, your general health and diet etc. These are things in your control.
PS you really don't want to have a stroke.
Given that your cholesterol levels were low perhaps your doctors should have ruminated a bit as to what actually caused your stroke ( possibility of afib??) and instead of following the knee jerk protocol of a statin , determined whether anticoagulation would be a more appropriate treatment. There are plenty of dissident cardiologists throughout the world who have shown by re-examining the studies on statins ( with the data that Pharma actually makes available) that the benefits are minimal. But they refuse point blank to release the individual patient data - citing commercial secret. Could it be that if all the data was available for independent researchers to analyse there would be no benefit at all ?
Well an interesting response. The meds were prescribed by the Cardiologist as is always the case post cardiovascular problems and I was put on antiplatelet because the stroke was paroxysmal. It was precisely the lack of a clear and obvious cause that generated the treatment response, for which I am grateful. My risk of another stroke remains considerably higher now and was very high in the first 6 months post stroke. Investigations continued and bloods were monitored. NICE initiated new guidance on a stroke reduction strategy and recommended fitting LINQ ECG implants to monitor the heart for paroxysmal AFib which the evidence points to being linked to increase stroke risk. This was subsequently recommended for me and was fitted in February. In May a short Afib event was detected and meds were changed appropriately to anticoagulants, again part of NICE guidance to reduce UK strokes deaths by 6500.You can't prove a negative, and so many of the 'anti' type posts on HealthUnlocked use this unscientific, belief based approach to the case they make, based on a personal experience of one. Maybe this forum just attracts naysayers and doubters who need a platform. Whatever, they lack an ethical framework for making their assertions.
I came to this platform for helpful experience, a chinkoflight after a severe stroke which came out of the blue. For the most part this happened, especially on the exercise and self help platforms I used in the early days. Having to sift through the negative posts is a drag which occasionally becomes annoying. Correcting ignorance is not for the benefit of the post that gets my feedback but by way of asserting the positive advice for those who really need re-assurance on their health journey after a medical crisis who might be susceptible to the false narratives.
I've been on statins for many years based on my high, LDL (resident to diet and exercise) and family history of coronary artery disease. No side effects that I'm aware of but even if so, it's a matter of balancing risk versus reward. Certainly a trial of lifestyle and diet changes is reasonable and in some cases that may be all you need. FWIW every GP and cardio doctor I've been to said they are personally taking statins. I'm from the US.
Jim
Why exactly do you feel stressed? What are you worried about?
If you have no comorbidities, no family history and even with cholesterol around 7, I am a non-believer in statins. I was offered them 20 yrs ago and declined. Since, here and elsewhere, I have not read anything to change my mind.
Hi Second try, the operative word here is ' believe' this is not part of the vocabulary of science. Epidemiology and drug effectiveness is a numerical exercise based on probability. Your condition has been managed with an effective drug which has worked to reduce but not remove the risks associated with your body metrics. You have a track record of actively taking responsibility for your health which may contribute to continued good health and positive outcomes. None of this nullifies the general contribution statins have made to reducing in particular risks of stroke. Take it from me you don't want to take actions that might increase the risk of stroke. And it's a brave or reckless person that would suggest to someone uncertain about a course of action to take statins for example not to bother from the basis of a belief. Just tell them to pray?
Epidemiological studies can only give population risk. They say nothing about individual risk. The crucial figures for individuals deciding whether to take drugs especially ones like statins whose benefits are disputed are NNT ( number needed to treat ) and NNH (number needed to harm) . Doctors very rarely reveal them - if they even know them. If you were told that 268 people had to be treated with a statin for 5 years in order to prevent one stroke but that there was no guarantee that you would be the one person whose stroke was prevented, you might think twice about taking one no matter how much your doctor tried to scare you by quoting a risk assessment whose algorithm has been shown to overestimate risk in the real world. Especially if you also knew the NNH for statins which for myalgia is 21 and new onset diabetes 204. So actually there is a better chance that the statin will cause new onset diabetes- a risk for cardiovascular disease- than it will prevent a stroke. And an even greater risk that it will give you leg pain that is so bad you will not be able to exercise.
Isn't this (a clip from the Mayo Clinic recommendations web page), still true or has there been more recent information:
"The real risk of developing muscle pain as a result of taking statins is about 5% or less compared with taking a pill that doesn't contain medicine, called a placebo. However, studies have found that nearly 30% of people stopped taking the pills because of muscle aches even when they were taking a placebo."
Steve
The study that I read on this switched people back and forth between statin and placebo. The assumption is that the muscle pain if caused by the statin will stop when the statin is stopped. But the rate at which this happens is not the same for everybody according to patient reports. Some people find their pain gets better pretty quickly but others it takes longer and some do not improve. This does not mean that the statins did not cause the pain in the first place. Was the study designed to take account of this? It is a while since I read it and I found it difficult to ascertain if they had taken this into account. The research into statins a d new onset diabetes is concerning especially as it is worse for women for whom cholesterol lowering is is even less desirable.
I’ll look again into this as these effects and the idea of “nocebo” are fascinating. I seem to recall reading a large trial in which the side effects were rather proven to have been imagined through switching active and placebo arms.
Steve
Selective and dated. Quite happy for you to assert your right not to take statins. You might have decided not to have an anaesthetic too based on the consequences and just struggled with a bad hip but you decided to trust the doctors on that occasion.
What exactly is dated? Your analogy with the bad hip is ridiculous. You can feel the pain in your hip. You know when you cannot walk properly and have to crawl upstairs. Most people taking statins are taking them because they have cholesterol which is deemed to be too high- this assessment is often done on total cholesterol with no breakdown of the LDL and HDL types. They would have no idea of their cholesterol level without a blood test. They cannot "feel " that they have high cholesterol like you can feel the pain in your hip.
Step back a bit. Heartbeat4 made a post. You are making a generalised case against statins and ignoring the balance of Epidemiology evidence. You repeat an earlier point I made before your comment about the basis of research and individual risk. You decided to take medical advice and the high risks associated with a hip pain and an eventual operation. You decide to ignore advice when it suits. That is not a good basis for offering advice and opinion, especially with a touch of zeal and affront.
I actually did not take medical advice about having the hip op but listened to my body - not that you would know anything about what was going on in my mind prior to it. When I first went to my doctor I thought the pain I was experiencing was due to tendinitis in my inner thigh. He sent me for x rays because after poking and pulling he suspected hip arthritis. The x Ray showed no cartilage whatsoever in my right hip and he said I needed a replacement. I flatly refused as the pain I was experiencing was not that bad. A year later I had the op - not because of medical advice but because I could not walk properly, some days had to crawl upstairs and often could not sit down without screaming because of something "locking" in my thigh. I was desperate to alleviate my pain and reduced mobility and do not tolerate painkillers well. As for the balance of epidemiological evidence see Mugsy's reply which I notice you have not bothered to refute .
I appreciate this discussion between you and chinkoflight. It is informative. Thank you both!
Hi Chinkoflight. You seem to have an unshakable faith in Science and that is fine. You have referred to naysayers and doomsters that to some degree proliferate on this site. You seem to be saying that their opinions lack validity and they are not supported by Science. I would like to point out the fact that there is no one monolithic block of knowledge that we can call Science. It is an amalgam of opinions. As you know Science gains validity by the process of being tested and questioned. It is called the scientific method. Epidemiological studies do not prove causation. Meta analyses can indicate the direction of causality at best. RCTs are the gold standard but it is difficult to isolate all the confounding factors.
It is also worth noting that there is rarely a consensus of opinion within any subdivision of Science or medicine. There are often descenders to the majority view. It is not unusual for very eminent experts to take opposite views on the same subject within their field of expertise. Statistical data can be very counter intuitive. Also within any field of Science or Medicine you can get a Paradigm shift whereby a largely accepted view or practice is overturned. Think of gastric ulcers back in the day.
In short I think that every view is worth consideration. Most people choose those strands of Science which support their own view. There is nothing wrong with having a questioning mind.
Regards
Peppered with plausible statements to imply breadth of reading. Evidence? Null hypothesis not an amalgam of opinions. Science doesn't gain validity. Reification appears to be your suggestion here. It's a process. It tests. It correlates. It looks at outcomes. It refines. It accepts critical thinking. It reviews with peers. It educates, but not always well enough!
I think I detect a healthy note of cynicism in your reply. Good for you.
I merely state that you appear to have built an edifice which you indicate is based upon science and high ethical standards which you appear to think is beyond question. I do not believe that this is so. You are not shy about denigrating the opinion of others.
I take the general view that we must all entertain the idea that we may be wrong at any one time. I guess it is called humility.
Regards
I too got stressed by the statins conversation with one of our GPs a while back. Actually it was at the end of a phonecall and she delivered it like a bombshell! I was so grateful for the advice on this forum. What I suggest is you do some fact finding about cholesterol and how the overall score is calculated in the UK. You can get the basics from NHS sites, as well as the Cardiovascular Disease Risk score. Go and play with the CVD score and put in different figures. Find out your HDL,LDL and triglyceride levels. Don't allow your GP to scare you. That's not appropriate and of course it makes you feel stressed. I actually wrote to our surgery after this initial conversation, queried it, sent them a recent echocardiogram result, my BP levels and family history, and asked for a further consult. It was then, another GP said - I'm happy- your LDL is OK and if I took AF out of the calculation your Risk score would be much lower. I've had an ablation abd things are going well, but they're nor allowed to take the AF out of the calculations.
Knowledge is power!
My cholesterol is high & think it’s genetic. Statins were mentioned but I’m not interested. You can try COQ10 or apple cider vinegar to try & get it down. Just make sure you’re not taking anything that disagrees with Q10.
Just adding a point here that is worth noting if you don't mind as many people don't know that you need to take advice using Coenzyme Q10 if you are on anticoagulants because it affects the efficiency of blood thinners and has a blood clotting effect. That's probably the thing you were talking about.
I'm amazed GPs and practice nurse are still quoting that '40% reduction in stroke and heart attacks' nonsense at patients. It's been widely discredited for a few years now as a gross manipulation of the way statistics were presented in one study. There have been much more recent studies concluding that the life expectancy benefit of Statins averages between 4 hours and 4 days in long-term users whilst causing all manner of nasty side effects in a high percentage of them.
Following a documentary on the ABC channel in Australia exposing the unethical marketing and fraudulent statistical analysis of Statins, there was a huge drop-out of Statin use. Two Cardiologists commented in the press that the programme makers would be personally responsible for a huge rise in cardiac death in the country. Strangely enough the statistics a year on never made it into the press - because the incidence of heart attack and stroke REDUCED.
Don't take my word for this, please have a look at the excellent lectures to the medical community on YouTube under the heading 'Low Carb Down Under', by eminent doctors who have picked apart the various studies and carefully read the small print therein. There is some very interesting stuff about the myths that have been propagated about Cholesterol too.
'Dr. Paul Mason - the shady truth about Statins' would be a good place to start, perhaps followed by 'Why your doctor thinks Cholesterol is bad'.
Whenever I am told my cholesterol is slightly high I take red yeast rice capsules until the next test when levels are always acceptable! I don’t like taking any drugs that aren’t really essential and the flecainide I take regularly ensures my heart behaves properly. I have never been overweight etc and I am 79.
You're kidding yourself if you think they're not drugs. Red yeast rice capsules carry the same active ingredient as some statins with similar side effects. Cost may be less, but quality control may also be less.
mayoclinic.org/drugs-supple...
Jim
I’ve been on statins for years - 20mg a day - and haven’t noticed any side effects. I just regard them as a bit of an insurance policy.
Cholesterol level OK but a stroke put me on them. I notice many people here seem to assume statiins are purely for cholesterol but they have other benefits for our arteries too. I had aches and pains so my dose was reduced Atorvastatin 20mg and I've been fine since. TBH I was always wary about them but the stroke changed my mind!
Hi
Have you AF?
Statins are an add on your list to reduce your cholesterol and triglyerides.
I have just proved that Avorastatin 10mg can reduce the above within a week of starting it.
For example my test showed 7.5 level 2 months ago.
After a week I had "no food since 12 midnight.'
My cholesterol came down to 4.8 less good HCL to 3.2.
Triglycerides 1.3.
I was surprised.
What is your cholesterol level? What is your triglycerides?
We all need cholesterol .
My H/Specialist says he would like my level to be 4.
Its up to you. High Cholesterol means you have this fatty substance sticking to sides of arteries and it may cause a blocking to carry oxygen in the blood to stop. Your brain is affected if it is this region affected.
cheri JOY. 74. (NZ)
Just a note that not all statins are the same.
It is not unknown for someone to be fine on one statin but suffer some sort of adverse reaction on another.
I don't understand why so many people are so worried about statins. Research has proved that if people re given either statins or a placebo there are as many complaints about aches and pains from the placebo as from statins. I wish my cholesterol had been tested and I'd been given statins years ago then I probably wouldn't have had a heart attack 5 years ago. I happily take them now with no ill effects at all. The first ones I was given upset my stomach so they were changed and I have no problems at all. Remember that it's usually people who have problems who post about them People who are fine don't complain. IN any case the problems are often caused by something else. I've suffered from chronic pain from other conditions for 30 years so I did naturally wonder whether it was the statins making me worse bu t I came off them for a month and it was obvious it was my other conditions getting worse but not the statins. This video by the BHF is well worth watching. youtube.com/watch?v=om7PnTd...
Whereas I don't understand why people are so confident that statins are so incredibly safe.
Doctors in particular need to be reminded that there are many reasons to be cautious about prescribing statins in general, and specific statins in particular.
Statins have their place. But very much not added to the water supply as famously suggested by one (idiot) doctor several years ago.
Indeed, I have read of too many doctors who advise statins for their patients but would, and do, refuse for themselves. An interesting subject for discussion.
This is a link to the side effects/adverse reactions profile of just one statin - Simvastatin. Five deaths so far this year and 62 serious incidents that were not fatal.
info.mhra.gov.uk/drug-analy...
This is a link to the Summary of Product Characteristics for one Simvastatin product:
medicines.org.uk/emc/produc...
I would prefer to read those adverse effects figures as a percentage of the total number actually taking the drug.Even 4000 adverse effects can be a minute percentage of hundreds of thousands being treated. All drugs carry risks. I recently looked up the yellow card reports on the vaccines being given just now. Because heart events are listed under so many different descriptions such as arrhythmia, palpitations, AF, SVT etc it's difficult to work out total numbers and apart from fatalities ( which may or may not have been directly caused by the vaccine) we have to remember that yellow card reports are mostly made by patients who have no proof of the cause. They simply report their symptoms after starting a drug. I could truthfully report that while taking simvastatin, my joint pain has increased massively. It has but the cause is not my simvastatin whereas my husband could report joint pain on atorvastatin and that would be true and proven. I do agree that statins should not be prescribed like smarties to everyone but only when necessary.
There are several good points in your reply.
Yes, 4000 as a percentage of all taking statins is a small number. But I suggest that the number of Yellow Card reports submitted is a small fraction of actual side effects/adverse reactions. This is after many interactions with patients who have had issues (with a variety of medicines - not just statins) and assumed their doctor would report them. I suspect very few doctors put in any Yellow Card reports. Especially when it is a repeat of a previous issue.
Thus we see, for an example, patients started on Simvastatin then moved on to another statin such as Atorvastatin when they have issues. Doubt more than the tiniest number of Yellow Cards are ever done.
And many patients find the process overwhelming.
Yes, the spread of symptoms/issues even within "heart" can confuse.
Completely agree that many never report. I have friends who simply can't do it even when they've had serious ill effects. The yellow card reporting wants so much detail you have to be pretty well informed and computer literate to do it. GPs simply don't have the time and many adverse events are considered to minor to bother. I know when I had a bad reaction to atorvastatin and had it changed, I certainly didn't report it. It was just bad stomach pain which I get with a lot of drugs. I did, however report and extremely bad arrhythmia that started within 12 hours of my last vaccination and the detailed information they wanted nearly put me off.
Statins do more than just lower cholesterol. My cholesterol levels are the lowest anyone has ever seen, but my cardiologist recommended I take 5 mg 3 times a week after he saw my MRI brain scan, to protect the small arteries at the top of the brain as he said they were showing signs of narrowing. I assume that they stay in your blood for a while. They also give protection from TIA's of course. I have no side effects at all.
All the best
Roy
You were fortunate to get an MRI. I don't think they're on offer in the UK to see if there might be a problem. I could be wrong however
I live in East Sussex near Rye. Last time I looked we were in the UK.🤣😂
All the best.
Roy
LOL. I just meant that I'd love to have my arteries checked out as a preventative investigation. But I'm pretty sure we don't do that. May I ask what was the basis on which your cardiologist asked fir the scan?
Hi Heartbeat4 now you have quite a lot of feedback and also generated a not atypical debate on statins ( you might have been surprised by this) I would be interested and I'm sure others would be too to know how you are processing this and what your current thinking is. Hopefully if nothing else you might be better informed to have another conversation with your GP. I didn't say this before, I may have had some muscle ache early on but couldn't be sure this wasn't also a consequence of the stroke but after 20 months I have no adverse reactions and am just grateful I have the choice. As I said before I don't want another stroke.
Please, PLEASE go onto YouTube, search for Dr Sanjay Gupta's videos. He's a consultant cardiologist at York Cardiology, York, U.K. This man is reaching millions with his advice to patients, which greatly removes the anxiety and fears surrounding the treatments routinely prescribed today for heart disease. He has devoted his life to letting people know the truth on medications, AF and other issues. All videos are free, and his advice is free unless you'd like a consultation, which he can also provide online. I know he'll tell you the facts and reassure you. There ARE alternatives to statins, and the problem is, most doctors prescribe these without even much thought, it seems, even though they have serious side-effects, especially muscle pain, and the fact that patients have to stay on them for rest of life. The specialist I saw never even mentioned those two vital facts when he handed me a script for them. I refused to start them, but that's not to say you may not need them. I know you'll get the help and advice you need. Best wishes,
I have followed Dr Gupta for over 9 years and his advice on blood pressure I have also spoken with him on the phone He is very knowledgeable and I love his videos and his opinions on inflammation in the body' I starting taking Magnesium after seeing one of his videos I have no comorbidities and don't smoke or drink I have also lost two stone I do know a few people who are taking Statins and still smoking and drinking I know they can help But are not a fix it all solution
Some knowledgeable doctors in fact advise against statins. I know the cardio specialist I saw gave me a script for them but my GP advised my tests don't even confirm I am indicated to need them! I guess anything goes for some doctors - and am certainly far from impressed. Dr Gupta clarifies the issue with statins and yes, I can't believe the difference magnesium has had on my life - just one capsule at night an hour before bed gives me the DEEPEST sleeps I've ever had, calms my stress and my heart. A total bonus! So glad you found Dr Gupta so long ago - what a comfort! I'm still trying to get the time to write and ask him for an online consult - he's too valuable to let pass!
nhs.uk/medicines/atorvastatin/
The Q and A is very helpful and authoritative unlike many opinions posted here. Hope this helps
Please don't post responses in a way that puts others down. You've shared some useful information from a perspective that you feel is reliable. I found it useful. But if you denigrate others it is likely to attract negative responses and then the value of debate and good information in the thread is lost.
Hi, your point is taken. I responded to Heartbeat4 with I hope a helpful response. As I checked the thread out, I saw it effectively hijacked by the for or against statins debate with several very assertive anti statins responses not even directly replying to Heartbeat4 but engaging in a separate debate. I decided to respond to a protagonist if only to call them out and challenge them to be more open and honest. I did make sure I understood their history on HU. I didn't expect them to actually take any notice but I wanted to be sure that their contributions couldn't just stand unchallenged. This is a forum to help people not politicise their choices. You will see that there has been some support for my approach. I am ending my contribution with this response to you. Denigration is a strong word and you may have used this in a very subtle way. My assertions were limited to UK health accepted basis of good practice and personal in so far as I asked about decision making processes for personal choices when receiving the help of expert medical practitioners.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
I'm 82 and I've been taking 40 mg Atorvastatin for elevated cholesterol for 30 years. What's the problem?
Hi DD,I think the problem of a problem is some read another's problem,and they find they may have a problem.tke care...
Do your family suffer from high cholesterol and heart disease? I was put on statins by my GP years ago when every one seemed to be put on them but had a nightmare of a time on them passing out and unable to function for days. GP said to try without them so I did and everything went back to normal. I think I managed to stay on them for about 6 weeks and passed out once at the bank and once when shopping in Tesco. My friend who had a family history of heart disease had high cholesterol that absolutely wouldn't budge whatever she tried to do with diet and exercise. So for her statins were the right thing. Her father died at 52 from heart disease and both her younger siblings pre deceased her of heart disease. Sandie was diagnosed with AF in her mid sixties and died at 74 from heart disease. For some Statins are the right way to go but not necessarily for all of us - though I am always interested to hear that taking Statins does seem to help with other things as well.
People seem to get a little confused about why statins are prescribed as a preventative medication for many different cardiovascular conditions.Although they are helpful for reducing cholesterol and triglycerides results to normal , healthy levels they aren't just used to do this.
If they were , any person with a cardiovascular problem could just rely on changing their diet or stop taking the statins once their cholesterol was in normal range and their doctor would tell them to do that.
The most important reason for taking statins with a heart or cardiovascular issue is to reduce the risk of heart attacks caused by plaques and blockages that can build up on the artery walls ; plaques which include cholesterol in their make up.
These plaques can build up and be unstable even in people with a healthy low cholesterol diet and they won't necessarily cause you any symptoms until one breaks away or become larger or forms in areas that causes a blockage. Just as a blood clot may give no symptoms until it passes into an area where it can cause an emergency event.
Statins help to stabilise any cholesterol in plaques which build up on the arteries by changing the lipid content of plaques and assist in the removal of cholesterol from the body in general. In this sense , they play similar preventative benefits to taking anticoagulants/ blood thinners and reduce our risks of having a cardiovascular event by as much as 30-40%.
If you are happy to take an anticoagulant to reduce the risks of clots and stroke you should be equally as happy to use a statin to help reduce the risk of arterial plaque problems and blockages or cardiac events, even though both medications can have side effects and may require adjustments. Both are proactive preventative care methods to reduce your risks of heart attacks and strokes.
There are side effects , yes, but there are various statins that you can trial and various doses that help you to have the benefit of statin use with no or few side effects. It's worth trialling them and finding out which one suits you. And if the usual statins don't suit you there are also other options like , Ezetimibe which can give you similar benefits .
Natural or herbal options and changes in diet or lifestyle can reduce your blood cholesterol level as seen in blood tests but they have not been proved to have the same effect on the formation and stabilisation of arterial plaques as prescribed statins do which is why GPs are recommended to prescribe them by Cardiology Specialists.
I have various cardiac issues but it was found I also needed a statin because despite having a healthy diet and using natural alternatives my cholesterol was still high. I , like 250,000 people in the UK have a genetic cause for my high cholesterol, many people have this as an undiagnosed condition throughout life which show no symptoms until a cardiac problem arises. The benefits of statins for many of us far outweigh the risks for various reasons.
It's good to use both diet and lifestyle changes and recommended medications working hand in hand to have a well balanced approach to your self care regime.
Hope this helps you feel more reassured and informed about your choice, take care , Bee
Hi heartbeat ,without getting into the do or dont issues ,i was advised by my gp a number of years ago to start statins , i declined and started on plant sterols in stead along with exercise , a couple of months back speaking to my ep he said my cholesterol was reasonable , but my gp scared the life out of me, giving me a 29 out 30 score for a heart attack in 10 years.
I’ve been on statins for a few years now and in the first 6/9 months I had lots of muscle ache and pain in my legs which is a known side affect for some people. After researching this and taking advice from a few friends that had experienced similar issues I decided to try Co Q10 100mg ( once a day) which can help and within 3/4 days no more aches and pains and nothing since!
It’s so satisfying when you find something from the supplement world that really works so for anyone with similar side affects it’s worth a try as you can have the statin benefits without the achy and sometimes painful muscles 👍
It's worth noting though , I'm writing here as a note to all not just for yourself if you don't mind , that you have to get advice and take care taking Coenzyme Q10 if you are on blood thinners which many people are as part of the preventative treatment of AF.Q10 affects blood clotting.
Cholesterol levels aside, statins have demonstrated significant anti-inflammatory properties which may be just as important in preventing CAD than cholesterol.
Jim
Over the years I’ve tried different statins, always got different side effects. Last year I began trying them again as I’d been very ill-again there was an issue. Following my own in-depth research I asked to try a particular one - totally ok - my cholesterol wasn’t bad at all but great result- don’t want side effects of not taking them
Thank you all for your Replies Food for Thought
Statistics are important. Last time I checked the benefit using statins is only around 1.5% or less - on 'average'. Of course depending on the bracket you are in but still... the benefit of almost everybody is around 1.5% or less for "efficacy" - mortality and the rest. Many times doctors will tell you you have a 40% increase chance of 'something' if you don't use statins. Not all but many times, that 40% increase is actually 40% on top of that 1.5%. That is '2.1%' not 40%. Ask your doctor about the real statistics on your bracket and mortality. Better yet, ask your GP doctor and your Cardiac doctor regarding these statistics. All these doctors should know the real statistics on the benefits of statins and especially your health issues. Last time I checked there are a few pivotal studies showing those real statistics.
General practitioner, General cardiologist, Interventional cardiologist, Electrophysiologist, Cardiac surgeon, Vascular surgeon,
The clinical trials for statins that I’ve browsed through, seem to show more benefit for those who’ve had a cardiovascular event. They seem likely to cause mental fuzziness and make you feel naff (liver), so it’s a QOL vs do they really help anyway, for those with just AF…..
Not what you're looking for?
You may also like...
To statin or not to statin
ratio 3.7. I’m 69, fit, and happy. Any views on the advice to go on statins?
Statins
if this is AF related or from taking statins. I have stopped taking them to find out if I get an...
Statins
been offered Statins but thought I would try to lower it by diet first in case the statins affected...
Statins
below 10%. Any advice or views would be very welcome as I don’t fancy taking any more medication...
Statins
statins
Statins
Statins
