10% risk of CVD - Statins

Posted , 4 users are following.

Has anyone started taking statins or been offered them because their doctor has told them they have a 10% risk of Cardiovascular disease over the next 10 years? I think people get offered 20mg atorvastatin at this level? What are people's experiences at this level?

1 like, 15 replies

15 Replies

  • Posted

    I've never been told anything like that, but my former GP did say I was riskinjg another heart attack if I stopped taking statins.  My current GP hasn't really commented much, he left it up to me after I listed the negative effects I'd experienced and told him I'd done a lot of research.
  • Posted

    I am after information like that myself.  How much at risk are we with high cholesterol - how much are we protecting ourselves from, at the cost of such potentially devastating and permanent side effects?  Are we 2% more likely to have a heart issue, or .02%?  What are the real stats?  And what are the stats for having a heart issue with perfectly fine cholesterol, simply because you've had a NON-CHOLESTEROL related heart issue that required an operation, as in my case?  At my care center they put you on statins, seems like, at the drop of a hat.  Can't attest to the damage to the muscles, but my blood sugar went pre-diabetic and my memory was drilled full of holes.  I will never willingly go on them again.  But please, if you have any answers to the "what is the likelihood" questions, please contribute them here.
    • Posted

      The Heart Foundation or whatever it's called in your country (UK?) probably has stats, but there's no way they'd indicate an individual's personal risk because there are so many other variables. and of course, as with anything you need to check who did the research and how big the sample was.

      There;'s no doubt statins lower cholesterol but there are conflicting stats on how much cholesterol is a factor in cardio-vascular disease and death.    Google "statins" and you'll probably find more information than you want to deal with!

       

  • Posted

    I am in the USA.  

    I am not looking for personal stats, just general ones.  Certainly the drug companies are stating them to the GPs they depend on to dispense them.  Something must be convincing them.  If not it's simply payola.

    If they are not substantial, why are we risking our health going on statins!  I'd rather die a few years earlier, enjoying my life, than die a slow death from these side effects.

    • Posted

      I wouldn't be trusting anything the drug companies say and I don't know why doctors do, except that it's part of their training to do so and also most of them are too busy to check out every claim made to them by drug companies

      It was a hard decision for me, to make up my mind that I didn't know how long statins might or not might prolong my life and that I'd rather risk another heart attack than live in the state I was in when I was taking them.

      There is the argument that assuming statins do reduce the cardio vascular risks and that they don't kill you, if we want to live as long as possible the answer is to take them.   That's valid for some people, however there is the issue that most people aren't makng an informed choice to take them, they're just doing what their doctors tell them and then dealing with the negative effects later.

       

    • Posted

      Have you checked out the website Statin Nation?
  • Posted

    We trust that the side effects will be minimal to inconsequential, unless advised otherwise by our doctors.  If there were powerful, debilitating and possibly permanent side effects, would not the doctors tell us???

    That was where I was coming from for the entire first year after my heart operation, as I took dose after dose, day after day after day, of the cocktail they designed for me when I got out.  It took getting derailed because of my faulty, patchwork memory that the statins created - by lowering my cholesterol to well below normal - to wake me up to the fact that something must be missing here, in this equation!

    I think that sitting a person down after a life threatening operation like that and spelling out what you're going to be taking, why, and what it might possibly do, should be essential to any doctor's healing plan for us. 

    At present it is most definitely not.

    • Posted

      As a public patient in Australia, both the cardiologist and the hospital pharmacist spent time with me explaining what each medication was for, but no negative effects were mentioned by either of them.   I read the leaflets which came with the scripts and later did some research on the internet.

      I feel that it's important for us as patients to take some responsibility for what we're putting in our bodies and not rely 100% on our doctors for information regarding medication:  obviously if they're prescribing it they believe it's ok.  

      This is not to say that some doctors aren't irresponsible:  earlier this year a gp prescribed a new medication for my migraines, which had a clear warning on the manufacturer's website that it should never be taken by anyone with a heart condition:  I promptly changed doctors and told her why.

  • Posted

    If a medical professional is taking the time to talk with us about side effects and leaves out the negative ones, we listen and believe we've heard it all.  Nothing could be further from the truth, if they are leaving out the bad ones, especially KNOWN dangerous ones.  Ones that can cause damage and be permanent.

    While I agree with you that we should be taking responsibility for whatever we put into our bodies, the least those professionals should do is to say that there are negative side effects we need to be aware of and that we should definitely look over the pamphlet before embarking.  To not do so - as Peter Paul and Mary once said in one of their songs - is lulling us into a false sense of security.

    • Posted

      Ummm ..... I thought I knew all of Peter Paul & Mary's songs and I don't remember anything about reading drug companies' pamphlets????

      I give most doctors the benefit of the doubt, that if they're prescribing something they believe the side effects are either minimal or balance out the positive effects:  I haven't seen them as gods for decades now, but I do acknowledge that the same cardiologist who prescribed statins for me also saved my life by inserting a stent after I'd had a heart attack.

       

  • Posted

    Well my cardiologist was not my surgeon, and I only met my surgeon once after the operation.  The cardiologist has done all the follow-up.

    I think that PP&M phrase was from a live album, it was interjected while introducing a song... 

    • Posted

      What phrase?  They mentioned pharmaceutical companies' leaflets?  I don't think so .....
  • Posted

    No, silly.  They used the phrase "...lulled into a false sense of security".
    • Posted

      Thanks for finally explaining!   How am I silly for not being able to read your mind via the internet?
  • Posted

    Just being silly myself, Jude.  No harm meant.  Just trying to keep it light around here.  Heaven knows it gets a little heavy around here now and then...

Report or request deletion

Thanks for your help!

We want the community to be a useful resource for our users but it is important to remember that the community are not moderated or reviewed by doctors and so you should not rely on opinions or advice given by other users in respect of any healthcare matters. Always speak to your doctor before acting and in cases of emergency seek appropriate medical assistance immediately. Use of the community is subject to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and steps will be taken to remove posts identified as being in breach of those terms.