GP Confuses Me (again).

[Aliwally]

I went to the GP to get a prescription for pravastatin as ordered by the lipid clinic. I saw another GP in the practice who I could describe as being either realistic or anti statin. He described pravastatin as being the "cleanest statin", said he sees side effects all the time and totally believed the pain and stiffness in my finger joints were statin side effects. I didn't even have to explain about the nightmares, he's seen it before.

He also says he sees plenty of people in their 80's with levels as high as mine (8.3) and my fantastically high HDL (2.4) makes me much less of a risk.

This has come just after I was getting some comfort from being "medicalised" with a condition with needed treatment! Now off to see my daughter's GP about her cholesterol and glucose levels, prepare for more confusion. Do you ever feel like piggy in the middle?

[DakCB-UK]

Yes, that HDL is fairly high for a sufferer (mine is 1.0) but 8.3 still seems quite high and doesn't cholesterol go up as you get older? If so, people in their 80s doesn't seem a great comparison. Wonder why he mentioned it? Maybe I'm wrong again.

I don't feel like piggy in the middle. I don't see enough medics to have opposing views. It's just me either with or against them. More like someone banging my head on a brick wall than piggy in the middle, I guess.

[Aliwally]

I'm almost wondering if he was saying, look at these 80 year olds they've lived to that age with levels as high as yours.

Fed up with GP surgeries today, waited for an hour and 15 minutes at my daughter's practice because their supa dupa computer system hadn't booked me (not because as the receptionist sarcastically put it, I was an hour and a half late), only to be told that her glucose and cholesterol levels were exactly the same as last year.

Never mind, at least I am now an expert on head lice and travelling abroad with diabetes, having watched that b****y TV for two hours.

[Aliwally]

I'm going to take the pravastatin 20mg for 6 weeks and then get the levels checked again, as the lipid clinic advised.

How are you feeling now?

[deepblue]

I have relatives in their 80's with cholesterol over 10, so I think some doctors and scientist say that cholesterol isnt the whole story when it comes to heart disease. Other factors must come into play - my husband knows someone age 87 with TC of 14 with no heart trouble whatsoever! Also statistics show half of the people with heart attacks have normal cholesterol. Not to mention the swiss and french paradox or the russian paradox etc.

My dad has had a heart attack age 76 - they have him on statins but no mention of Familial Hypercholesterolaemia!

When my cholesterol first came back as 8.6 one doc said "dont worry about it you are a woman", another said you have to go on statins and a third said its my choice! On top of this no one else in my family with high cholesterol has been told about FH and none of the docs seem bothered. Am totally confused.

[Aliwally]

I suppose also it depends on how you can tolerate statins. If you're OK taking them, them you would probably think they are worth taking. If, however you are getting a lot of unpleasant side effects you probably don't.

The only thing that worries me is that people with FCH (assuming I have it!) are "over represented" in the figures for CHD.

My strategy at the moment is to continue taking this very low dose and see how I get on. I also detected a certain antipathy from this GP towards lipid clinics, I think he thought he lived in the real world and they didn't.

Was your dad's cholesterol high before he had his heart attack?

[deepblue]

Hi Aliwally,

My dad says his cholesterol wasnt very high when he had his heart attack, but unfortunately he is 79 now and gets a bit confused sometimes,so am not sure.

I would think it would have to be fairly high for me to inherit it as it comes from his side of the family. I cant tolerate Lipitor and am reluctant to try the Crestor recommended because that is supposed to be a very aggressive statin despite the low dose. I am seriously thinking of not going back to the lipid clinic any more as it just stresses me out badly. I just found a letter from them which I had forgotten about (one year old) which says I may have FCH. When I asked the cons on my last visit a couple of weeks ago about this she denied me having FCH and said it was definitely FH. However my uncle has been diagnosed with FCH too so that would fit in. So I dont have much faith in the lipid clinic at the moment - it seems the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing!

[Aliwally]

I absolutely agree! It was at this point that I went to see a consultant privately. I had only been in the room 5 minutes and after looking at all my test results he said "I don't think you've got FH", to which I replied "neither do I".

Remember, I was frantic for a diagnosis because of my disabled daughter. My other two girls have low levels 4.5 and 4.3 TC so they don't need to get theirs tested again until middle age. Seeing as they are now in their early 20's this doesn't mean much to them. My eldest daughter needs to be checked every year...this is why diagnosis is just so important, but why is it so difficult?

[deepblue]

It says in my letter that not so much is known about FCH. I think my consultant probably thinks its not important to get a definite diagnosis - as far as they are concerned I have high LDL levels and am therefore being treated as if I have FH. But as you say, FCH seems to be more benign and it definitely matters with things like travel insurance. My premium has gone up considerably because of the diagnosis (I dont want to take any chances as I am going to the USA). I still think too much importance is placed upon cholesterol alone by the lipid clinics. My husband thinks they have targets to meet and is very sceptical about the whole thing!