The British Heart Foundation (who sponsor this forum) run a series of internet based Zoom presentations where they invite genuinely world class experts to discuss issues of interest to heart patients. And where you also have the opportunity of posting questions to really eminent cardiologists and researchers. Today's presentation was about Statins, and as always it was packed with fascinating information that you wouldn't find anywhere else.
For example the question was raised, why should someone keep taking statins if their cholesterol level was down in the "normal" range? I've seen this exact same point made many times on this forum without any good response. The answer was that our bodies have no minimum requirement for LDL cholesterol, and what is considered "normal" in 21st century Britain would still have been regarded as high in, for example, rural China in the 1960's (incidentally, they would also have only suffered a fraction of the heart disease that we have). So if you've been diagnosed with a heart condition it's still worth taking statins, even if your cholesterol scores appear relatively low.
The presentation also addressed an issue that's been on my mind. My cholesterol scores don't look too bad, so I was thinking of raising this with my GP with a view to reducing my dose from the current 40mg. The presentation made the point that larger doses of statins have a quantifiably greater reduction in the risk of heart attacks. Using the example of Atorvastatin, they said a 10mg dose reduces the risk of a heart attack by 37%, 20Mg by 43%, 40Mg by 49%, and 80Mg by 55%. So on this basis why isn't everyone on 80Mg? The answer is that the risk of Myopathy (a fairly serious muscular side effect) is a stable 1 in 10,000 up to 40Mg, but then suddenly jumps ten fold to 1 in 1,000 with the 80Mg dose. Consequently many GP's work on the basis that unless the patient has an obvious cholesterol problem it's more prudent to prescribe 40Mg. Having looked at these numbers I'm now happy to stay at 40Mg and not try and reduce any lower.
The side effects of statins was also discussed at length, and they showed some research where matched groups of patients were given statins and a placebo. What was astonishing was that almost identical percentages of the two groups reported muscle pain! The conclusion was two fold, firstly that statins tend to be prescribed to middle aged and older people who are beginning to have muscle pains as a normal part of the ageing process, and secondly there is so much negative publicity around statins and muscle problems that many people convince themselves they are experiencing problems when they're not.
All in all another superb presentation, I'd recommend them to anyone interested in learning more about the science behind our treatments.
Raymond
Still on 80mg of Statin
statins and elevated blood sugar (Hba1c)
Statins are great for teeth
Alternatives to Statins
