1. Community
  2. Heart Health
  3. Statins and Other Lipid-lowering Medicines

Reasons behind refusing statins?

Posted , 17 users are following.

kayjayem
kayjayem

Hi All,

I am trying to do a bit of research behind why is it difficult to keep patients on a prescription of a statin drug.

I am aware of all the side-effects caused by the statins, but i would like to know the reasoning behind the choice to come off your prescribed statin or to try and change drug;

Is this because you feel your quality of life is lowered on a statin.

Is it lack of evidence behind the efficacy of a statin to lower cholesterol etc?

I am trying to find out if there is anything that could be done to convince patients to continue on their prescription of statins, or whether they would prefer to be offered an alternative medication.

Any views or comments would be greatly appreciated, thank you.

 

0 likes, 47 replies

47 Replies

Next
  • brian03294
    brian03294 kayjayem

    Posted

    If as you say "I am aware of all the side-effects caused by the statins" why on earth would you want to try and "convince patients to continue on their prescription of statins".
    • derek76
      derek76 brian03294

      Posted

      One of my neighbours from a family decimated by heart disease says that he has to live with the side effects of statins and warfarin or die.
    • kayjayem
      kayjayem brian03294

      Posted

      i personally am not trying to convince patients to stay on their statins. I worded that badly.

      I am trying to find out if there would be anything that would convince a patient who is experiencing negative side effects (which seems to be the majority of patients who are on statins) that the drug is worthwhile taking.

      There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not statins are helpful to most patients. I was wondering why some patients persist with taking their medication? Is this due to the information given to them by their doctor as to the protection these drugs give over cardiovascular risk?

       

    • regina86086
      regina86086 kayjayem

      Posted

      This is an interesting research.  As far as I am concerned I have tried various statins and fenofibrate and the side effects are always so severe that have an impact on the quality of life.  I am trying to find out more about them but nothing seems to convince me that they are the wonderdrug they say they are.  I am otherwise healthy, eat helthyly, excecise in moderation and mainly was always a relatively happy person.  These meds are making me depressed and lose the will to live. 
  • derek76
    derek76 kayjayem

    Posted

    It is probably difficult to convince patients to take a preventative medication for something that may or may not happen in the distant future when they are feeling well at the moment. Rather like trying to convice people to pay into a pension scheme for their future prosperity.

    How much does the geographic location of the patient and local diet play in cholesterol levels. As some countries or religons do not eat meat do they get bad fats in other ways. We get very mixed reports on coconut fat and oil.  

    • douglas21840
      douglas21840 derek76

      Posted

      It's not just meat that contains cholesterol, one of the foods highest in content is avocado.  Also prawns are really high and if you really want to pile on the pounds try bananas.
    • loxie
      loxie douglas21840

      Posted

      Should just like to point out that it's not whether or not food 'contains' cholesterol, it's how it affects the body in producing our own.  We don't consume it we produce it and some foods trigger over production. I agree however that prawns are a culprit, as are many others which are immediately obvious.  It's not meat per se either, its the saturated fat it contains which is problematic.
    • loxie
      loxie

      Posted

      sorry typo ...should read ".....which ARENT immediately obvious" not 'are'. Old and blonde, not a good combination for keeping my thoughts and my typing in synch.
    • mrbob84
      mrbob84 loxie

      Posted

      Perhaps the statins have affected your mind like they did mine!cheesygrin  But I am thankful to say that lots of memories from decades ago have flooded in lately since I quit the statins, and I am so glad to be in touch with them again.  My life had become very 1 dimensional while on the statins.  Now it feels rich and full again.
  • kayjayem
    kayjayem

    Posted

    i personally am not trying to convince patients to stay on their statins. I worded that badly.

    I am trying to find out if there would be anything that would convince a patient who is experiencing negative side effects (which seems to be the majority of patients who are on statins) that the drug is worthwhile taking.

    There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not statins are helpful to most patients. I was wondering why some patients persist with taking their medication? Is this due to the information given to them by their doctor as to the protection these drugs give over cardiovascular risk?

     

  • loxie
    loxie kayjayem

    Posted

    As my cholesterol reading was off the Richter scale (often at 9) I would have loved to have been able to stay on statins to reduce my risk of stroke etc.  However, all forms of statins started to compromise my joints and muscles and had I continued to take them, I faced permanent severe damage, even death.  A difficult decision but quality of life was my deciding factor so I refused to continue.  These issues weren't just 'side effects' a term which indicates minor irritations, these were life threatening issues relating to muscle and liver damage from continuing to take statins.  For example - Myositis, inflammation of the muscles. The risk of muscle injury increases when certain other medications are taken with statins. For example, if you take a combination of a statin and a fibrate -- another cholesterol-reducing drug -- the risk of muscle damage increases greatly compared to someone who takes a statin alone.

    Elevated levels of CPK, or creatine kinase, a muscle enzyme that when elevated, can cause muscle pain, mild inflammation, and muscle weakness. This condition, though uncommon, can take a long time to resolve.

    Rhabdomyolysis, extreme muscle inflammation and damage. With this condition, muscles all over the body become painful and weak. The severely damaged muscles release proteins into the blood that collect in the kidneys. The kidneys can become damaged trying to eliminate a large amount of muscle breakdown caused by statin use. This can ultimately lead to kidney failure or even death.  Fairly obvious I would have thought why some people just CANNOT continue to take statins, regardless of their heart risks.

    • kayjayem
      kayjayem loxie

      Posted

      Yes I agree. I am currently looking at this from a doctors point of view – looking at the protective values of staying on the drug as opposed to coming off a statin.

      What I think you are right about it that the adverse effects of statins are being largely overlooked by the medical profession. Muscle wastage and damage is not so much a side effect as a damaging effect to the patient – which in some cases is irreversible.

      Despite the fact that statins can potentially cause damage, and ARE causing damage to some patients, I am trying to figure out why a patient would be prescribed a statin which may or may not prevent a cardiovascular event in the future – again which is not a definite occurrence. 

    • usch
      usch kayjayem

      Posted

      I think that the members of NICE need to have their egos reduced.

      It is them that instruct - basically order - GP's to offer statins to everybody who seems to be at risk of heart decease and have a serum cholesterol above 4, according to some Qrisk assessment tool.

      The average unsuspecting patient generally will not question the GP's recommendations, hence they start taking the drug.

      NICE have been criticised heavily by numerous medical and other professionals, but they seem to be in denial. 'There are hardly any side effects'.

      The problem is, that N ICE do heavily rely on research carried out by the pharmaceutical companies, who do not disclose their results with any transparency. Whether the members of NICE are 'in bed with the drug companies' may or may not be true; it is worrying though.

       

    • loxie
      loxie usch

      Posted

      You hit the nail on the head usch with your phrase 'average unsuspecting patient'  - I was told that whilst the leaflet within the packaging of my statins listed untold possible 'side effects' most were rare or minor and I shouldnt let that override the benefits.  What I wasn't told is that I should have regular liver enzyme tests, or report back immediately if certain muscular problems occurred.  Thankfully I had the wherewithal and resources available to me to do my own research but there are those that cant or dont and realistically it's a blatant untruth that these so called side effects are 'rare'.  From my experience and interraction, particularly on this forum, the incidence of damage from statin usage is all too common and unfortunately mostly ignored.
    • usch
      usch loxie

      Posted

      I think law suits are taking place in the US regarding prescriptions of statins.

      NICE were created some years ago to balance out thye inequalities of treatments people received due to different standards being applied by different doctors nation wide.

      They now have moved in the opposite directions by allowing those at GP level very little scope to apply their own judgment; they are basically deskilling the primary care medical professionals.

      It may be necessary for law suits to make NICE wake up.

    • marco
      marco kayjayem

      Posted

      Is this a wind up? Your posts are full of contradictions. You say 'you're looking at this from the doctors point of view'. Then go on to say that      'I am trying to figure out why a patient would be prescribed a statin which may or may not prevent a cardiovascular event in the future – again which is not a definite occurrence'. You should be asking doctors not patients.
    • kayjayem
      kayjayem marco

      Posted

      I'm just trying to look at it both ways. Like what would make a patient stay on or go off a statin. And why would they even be prescribed in the first place if they can cause patients damage. Do benefits out weigh the risks in some cases and not others? I'm just looking for opinions on the matter.

      I'm studying and researching lipids that's all and what I'm finding on some health pages doesn't really cover the real life case from patients. 

    • usch
      usch kayjayem

      Posted

      Read articles from Malcolm Kendrick

      With so much uncertainty around the side effects of statins, I think it borders onto criminality for organisations such as NICE to basically MAKE GP's convince patients to take a very potent drug that may help them or not help them.

    • brian03294
      brian03294 marco

      Posted

      Statins Provide No Benefit:- Study of 4 Million People.

      Published June 11th 2013 in Biomed Central's Journal of Negative Results in Medicine.

      A population-based study in Sweden shows that the massive deployment of statins has provided no benefit. Three times as many statins were being taken by Swedish people in the year 2000 than in 1998. Yet, the numbers of people suffering or dying from heart attacks were unchanged by the increase!

      Not only does this demonstrate that the massive push to press people into taking statins has been based on flawed science, it also turns the claim that randomized double blinded placebo controlled (RDBPC) drug trials are the gold standard upside down.  Obviously, it means that they're worthless—at least in the way that they're currently applied in pharmaceutical drug trials. Clearly, they are easily and routinely subverted.

      The effects of a drug when the entire populace is examined are obviously more important than carefully designed trials, especially when they're done by or for the people who stand to profit from them.

      Disease is not caused by a lack of drugs!neutral

    • derek76
      derek76 usch

      Posted

      Quote from an article in todays Daily Mail

      "I think its a crusade, and if you are a believer you want everything to prove it right and you throw out anyone who disagrees with you"

      He was actually referring to too little salt in peoples diet but it applies to most other research.

       

    • Boatdoc
      Boatdoc usch

      Posted

      What is sad is that people like me who are permanently damaged cannot get justice. Because I cannot document when I started taking statins and when a doctor first told me that I have a condition caused by statins, no lawyer will represent me. The lawyers are out for volume. They get the most people so they can get the class action amounts, they take the people that are easiest to document. My damage has been for years now, over 7 yrs and it would cost a fortune for me to find doctor records ( they don't give them to you, you must pay $$ for records). 
Back to top
Next

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.