Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Cholesterol prescription drugs
- Thread starter Varga
- Start date
Tatyana
Elite Mentor
If people are taking statins because their cholesterol is 200 mg/dl, then there is a major issue with the pharmaceutical companies advertising.
I read three medical journals on a regular basis, I will find it, but I am sure the latest massive study involving tens of thousands of people showed that if people didn't have any heart disease or hadn't had a heart attack, there was no benefit in taking a statin drug most of the time.
Especially at a young age.
Every week in the BMJ (British Medical Journal), which is one of the most respected medical journals in the world, there are articles about seriously unethical things that pharma companies have done for the sake of profit.
This first article is older, but it is a perfect example of things that I come across every week.
Not much has changed.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7151/101
BMJ 1998;317:101 ( 11 July )
News
Drug company fails to stop publication of report
David Spurgeon, Quebec
A legal dispute over the publication of a report on cholesterol lowering drugs has been won by the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA).
Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada tried to prevent publication of a report on statins produced by the independent technology assessment body, claiming that it would negatively affect the sales of their drug pravastatin (Pravachol). The company lost both its original case last December and an appeal in May.
CCOHTA, a non-profit corporation founded and funded by Canadian provincial, territorial, and federal health ministers, said that although the dispute was based on differences of opinion and interpretation between its research experts and those of Bristol-Myers Squibb, the real issue was freedom of speech. CCOHTA's mandate is to provide information on medical technologies to Canadian provincial health plan managers, health professionals, and hospitals. This was a report published by scientists, and Bristol-Myers Squibb was trying to prevent its dissemination.
Dr Jill Sanders, CCOHTA's president, said: "This case was precedent setting for many other Canadian organisations, such as the provincial health technology assessment offices, and the provincial ministry pharmaceutical programmes."
The pharmaceutical company countered that it was never its intention "to suppress the free exchange of scientific information," but to ensure that "physicians are given complete and accurate scientific information."
The company notes what it calls "the inconsistency between the more comprehensive report on statins published in October 1997 and the supplementary overview report." It gives one example of this, where the comprehensive report says that a review of the literature on the drugs shows "little evidence for or against a class effect," while the overview says that "since all statins lower total cholesterol and LDL [low density lipoprotein] and increase HDL [high density lipoprotein] to varying degrees, it may be assumed that they will reduce the risk of coronary events."
The company said in a statement: "Physicians should be encouraged to look at all the studies conducted on a drug and make treatment decisions based on the evidence provided in these studies. Extrapolating study results to other drugs in a class challenges the practice of evidence based medicine and trivialises peer reviewed scientific analysis."
The statement quotes a recent review article in JAMA by Dr Robert Rosenson as saying that despite comparable lowering of low density lipoprotein cholesterol among the statins, the non-lipid properties differ and "the net clinical efficacy of these agents requires validation by randomised clinical trials."
^^^^^^This study has since been done, and as I mentioned, it didn't look all that favourable for statins preventing heart attacks.
However, a drug that people take for LIFE, especially if they have been brainwashed to think that they need the NAME BRANDED drug rather than the generic drug, what an awesome moneymaker.
Statins are a life saving drug for some people, right now all I can think of are diabetics or people who have had heart attacks, but if you are under 50, you don't have a history of familial hypercholesterolaemia, and you don't have any of the other risk factors like smoking or obesity, then really, you could lower your cholesterol with diet and exercise.
Unreported cholesterol drug data released by company -- Lenzer 336 (7637): 180 -- BMJ
BMJ 2008;336:180-181 (26 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.39468.610775.DB
News
Unreported cholesterol drug data released by company
Jeanne Lenzer
1 New York
The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.
The makers of a popular cholesterol lowering drug have posted results of a study showing it was ineffective—but only after a Congressional inquiry was set up to look into why they had not published their results two years after the study was completed.
Merck and Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, manufacturers of ezetimibe (Zetia), posted results on their websites earlier this month showing that 356 people treated with ezetimibe (10 mg) plus simvastatin (80 mg) fared no better than 360 who had received simvastatin alone (Schering-Plough - News and Media - News Releases).
The study, known as the ENHANCE (Effect of Combination Ezetimibe and High-Dose Simvastatin vs Simvastatin Alone on the Atherosclerotic Process in Patients with Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia) trial, measured the thickness of carotid artery intima media as its primary end point. Although ezetimibe did cause an additional lowering of cholesterol, plaque progression was worse in the ezetimibe arm.
Ezetimibe, sold singly as Zetia or in combination....................
Tatyana
Elite Mentor
Here is one of the short articles I read.
There is also evidence that lowering cholesterol increases the incidence of depression.
How fab, take one drug, then you need to take another one, again, often long term.
There is the benefit of preventing alzheimer's and parkinson's disease with statins, but so does continuing to read the paper every day and maintaining social contacts.
I would highly recommend trying to drop your cholesterol and increase HDL as naturally as possible.
Start drug therapy when you REALLY need it.
Meta-analysis says low LDL cholesterol may be associated with greater risk of cancer -- Tanne 335 (7612): 177 -- BMJ
BMJ 2007;335:177 (28 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.39287.415347.DB
News
Meta-analysis says low LDL cholesterol may be associated with greater risk of cancer
Janice Hopkins Tanne
New York
Patients with low concentrations of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, lowered as a result of taking statins, are at significantly more risk of being diagnosed as having cancer compared with patients with higher concentrations of the cholesterol, according to a meta-analysis of 23 large studies of statins (Journalof the American College of Cardiology 2007;5:409-18).
The analysis found one more case of newly diagnosed cancer per 1000 patients with low achieved LDL cholesterol concentrations who were taking statin treatment (below 100 mg/dl) compared with patients with higher concentrations of the cholesterol (100-150 mg/dl). US guidelines recommend 100 mg/dl.
The study set out to investigate why and how statins sometimes increase concentrations of liver enzymes and cause rhabdomyolysis. Results showed that raised liver enzymes were significantly related to higher doses of statins. The rate of raised liver enzymes was 271 with high dose statin, 195 with intermediate dose, and 114 with low dose statin per 100 000 person years for each 10% reduction in LDL cholesterol (P<0.001 for all pairwise comparisons). Rates of rhabdomyolysis were also higher with higher doses of statins, although not significantly so.
The meta-analysis included 23 published trials of different statins used at a range of doses, with at least 1000 person years of follow-up. These included a total of 75 117 patients who took statins and cumulative follow-up of 309 506 person years.
The researchers found a "disturbing," highly significant inverse relation between the lowest concentration of LDL cholesterol achieved with statin treatment and the risk of newly diagnosed cancers (R2=0.43, P=0.009). The cancers were of a wide range of types, including genitourinary, prostate, respiratory, and haematological cancer. The researchers saw no significant relation between relative or absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol and rates of cancer.
Richard Karas, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, and lead author of the study, cautioned, "This analysis doesn't implicate the statins in increasing the risk of cancer. However, certain aspects of lowering LDL with statins remain controversial and merit further research," he said.
The study authors noted, "The body of evidence is reassuring that statin use in itself is not associated with an increased risk of cancer compared with placebo." But they said that previous studies had not answered the question addressed by their study: what is the relation between reduction of LDL cholesterol in patients treated with statins and incident cancer?
In the light of current feeling that "lower is better" for LDL cholesterol concentrations to reduce cardiovascular risk, the authors warned, "It may be prudent not to use a statin dose beyond what is required to achieve the LDL cholesterol target," but "evidence is reassuring that statin use in itself is not associated with an increased risk of cancer compared with placebo."
Another study showed that use of simvastatin was associated with an almost 50% reduction in the risk of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease and that another statin, atorvastatin, was associated with a "modest" reduction in risk (BMC Medicine 2007;5:20 doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-5-20).
The study analysed data from the decision support system of the US Department of Veterans' Affairs database, which contains diagnostic, medication, and demographic information on 4.5 million people. The association between taking a statin and dementia was examined compared with patients who took cardiovascular drugs other than statins, after adjusting for factors associated with dementia or Parkinson's disease.
Data were obtained for more than 700 000 people older than 64 years who were taking simvastatin and more than 50 000 people who were taking atorvastatin. The hazard ratios for incident dementia for simvastatin and atorvastatin were 0.46 (95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.48, P<0.0001) and 0.91 (0.80 to 1.02, P=0.11). Simvastatin also showed a reduced hazard ratio for newly acquired Parkinson's disease (0.51, 0.49 to 0.55, P<0.0001).
"The strength of reduction of incidence of dementia with simvastatin is striking," said lead author Benjamin Wolozin, professor of pharmacology at Boston University. He added, "The strength of this study is that it examines the issue with a huge amount of statistical power and uses existing data to look prospectively at Alzheimer's [disease] and Parkinson's [disease]."
There is also evidence that lowering cholesterol increases the incidence of depression.
How fab, take one drug, then you need to take another one, again, often long term.
There is the benefit of preventing alzheimer's and parkinson's disease with statins, but so does continuing to read the paper every day and maintaining social contacts.
I would highly recommend trying to drop your cholesterol and increase HDL as naturally as possible.
Start drug therapy when you REALLY need it.
Meta-analysis says low LDL cholesterol may be associated with greater risk of cancer -- Tanne 335 (7612): 177 -- BMJ
BMJ 2007;335:177 (28 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.39287.415347.DB
News
Meta-analysis says low LDL cholesterol may be associated with greater risk of cancer
Janice Hopkins Tanne
New York
Patients with low concentrations of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, lowered as a result of taking statins, are at significantly more risk of being diagnosed as having cancer compared with patients with higher concentrations of the cholesterol, according to a meta-analysis of 23 large studies of statins (Journalof the American College of Cardiology 2007;5:409-18).
The analysis found one more case of newly diagnosed cancer per 1000 patients with low achieved LDL cholesterol concentrations who were taking statin treatment (below 100 mg/dl) compared with patients with higher concentrations of the cholesterol (100-150 mg/dl). US guidelines recommend 100 mg/dl.
The study set out to investigate why and how statins sometimes increase concentrations of liver enzymes and cause rhabdomyolysis. Results showed that raised liver enzymes were significantly related to higher doses of statins. The rate of raised liver enzymes was 271 with high dose statin, 195 with intermediate dose, and 114 with low dose statin per 100 000 person years for each 10% reduction in LDL cholesterol (P<0.001 for all pairwise comparisons). Rates of rhabdomyolysis were also higher with higher doses of statins, although not significantly so.
The meta-analysis included 23 published trials of different statins used at a range of doses, with at least 1000 person years of follow-up. These included a total of 75 117 patients who took statins and cumulative follow-up of 309 506 person years.
The researchers found a "disturbing," highly significant inverse relation between the lowest concentration of LDL cholesterol achieved with statin treatment and the risk of newly diagnosed cancers (R2=0.43, P=0.009). The cancers were of a wide range of types, including genitourinary, prostate, respiratory, and haematological cancer. The researchers saw no significant relation between relative or absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol and rates of cancer.
Richard Karas, professor of medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, and lead author of the study, cautioned, "This analysis doesn't implicate the statins in increasing the risk of cancer. However, certain aspects of lowering LDL with statins remain controversial and merit further research," he said.
The study authors noted, "The body of evidence is reassuring that statin use in itself is not associated with an increased risk of cancer compared with placebo." But they said that previous studies had not answered the question addressed by their study: what is the relation between reduction of LDL cholesterol in patients treated with statins and incident cancer?
In the light of current feeling that "lower is better" for LDL cholesterol concentrations to reduce cardiovascular risk, the authors warned, "It may be prudent not to use a statin dose beyond what is required to achieve the LDL cholesterol target," but "evidence is reassuring that statin use in itself is not associated with an increased risk of cancer compared with placebo."
Another study showed that use of simvastatin was associated with an almost 50% reduction in the risk of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease and that another statin, atorvastatin, was associated with a "modest" reduction in risk (BMC Medicine 2007;5:20 doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-5-20).
The study analysed data from the decision support system of the US Department of Veterans' Affairs database, which contains diagnostic, medication, and demographic information on 4.5 million people. The association between taking a statin and dementia was examined compared with patients who took cardiovascular drugs other than statins, after adjusting for factors associated with dementia or Parkinson's disease.
Data were obtained for more than 700 000 people older than 64 years who were taking simvastatin and more than 50 000 people who were taking atorvastatin. The hazard ratios for incident dementia for simvastatin and atorvastatin were 0.46 (95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.48, P<0.0001) and 0.91 (0.80 to 1.02, P=0.11). Simvastatin also showed a reduced hazard ratio for newly acquired Parkinson's disease (0.51, 0.49 to 0.55, P<0.0001).
"The strength of reduction of incidence of dementia with simvastatin is striking," said lead author Benjamin Wolozin, professor of pharmacology at Boston University. He added, "The strength of this study is that it examines the issue with a huge amount of statistical power and uses existing data to look prospectively at Alzheimer's [disease] and Parkinson's [disease]."
Tatyana
Elite Mentor
The first time I had my cholesterol tested it was outrageously high.
I was a bit of a chubette at the time, and I had been on a break from training.
It was somewhere around 310 mg/dl or 8 mmol/L, which was outrageously high for a young, veggie woman.
I changed my diet, mostly watching how much fat I was eating, and it dropped significantly, and my HDL/LDL ration improved.
I have experimented more with my diet since I have been BBing, and recently on a high carb/high protein/low fat diet I have had the best results.
About a month ago, my total cholesterol was 4.7 mmol/L or 182 mg/dl and my HDL/LDL ratio was close to 2, I had an OUTRAGEOUSLY high amount of HDL and really low LDL.
My GP was amazed I did it, and they do ask how I did it.
I just know myself, and I am not that great at taking ANY tablet of supps everyday, I find it quite tedious, and I often have double sets of vitamins at home and at work as that way I have a better chance of remembering to take them.
The idea of starting statins at such a young age, and just the whole hassle of prescriptions, the expense, the extra blood testing, NO THANKS.
I will do it if I ever really NEED to, but not a moment before.
I assert there are some major issues with the pharma industry in the US. Recently there was a push to start testing cholesterol levels on children at the age of 2, and the reason being?????
Yes, drugs for life.
Wow, such good insight and I really appreciated Tatyana's point of view. My cholesterol was about 200 last time I checked it and now I really don't think that being on statins is the way to go.
I do cycle and that does not help much, but even in the past the highest my cholesterol got was like 250 and had no prob getting it down to 200. I think as Tatyana mentioned, fat may play an important role and for the past year I kept fat to a minimum.
I'm also looking into using compounds that are not so harsh on my lipids or at least do a heavy cycle then do a light one along with cardio, fish oil, niacin etc....
If I remember right my tryglicerides were a bit high last test HDL was good and LDL was within range but on the top end.
I do cycle and that does not help much, but even in the past the highest my cholesterol got was like 250 and had no prob getting it down to 200. I think as Tatyana mentioned, fat may play an important role and for the past year I kept fat to a minimum.
I'm also looking into using compounds that are not so harsh on my lipids or at least do a heavy cycle then do a light one along with cardio, fish oil, niacin etc....
If I remember right my tryglicerides were a bit high last test HDL was good and LDL was within range but on the top end.
