Refusing to take statins. What can my doctor do?

With a change of doctor, she suggested I have another go with them and I am currently on 40mg Simvastatin, I have found that by taking them with my evening meal, instead of last thing at night as was previously the case, I have avoided any apparent side effects and my last Cholesterol was 3.5.

I think the problem is that there are arguements from all sides which are partisan and people feel they are not getting the full story or the 'truth'.

Personally I am against taking any medication that is not immediately needed and the idea of pumping half the population full of any medication 'just in case' can only be storing up more problems later on.

Ultimately we are all going to die; most of us would prefer it was later rather than sooner but if one thing doesn't get us something else will. As you say, you might not get a heart attack but could meet your demise from a result of side effects from a medication.

If you have not had any heart trouble or strokes do you really need them. Have you had your levels tested before? If so how much have they gone up? Las year I was 5.7 and this year 6.3 and my doctor will test me again in three months.

I did start statins in March 2011 when I was found to have aortic stenosis but my areteies were clear. It was not long before I had muscle pains so I stopped and started a few times to prove the point. No way will I take them again.

She has every right and needs give no reason to reject you as a patient if she so wishes. You could of course take the snaky way out and take the prescriptions but not take the tablets. My GP says that 40% of his patients don't take what is precribed so join the Club.

Latest from today's Daily Mail............

Millions of healthy Britons are about to be given statins needlessly and exposed to debilitating side effects which include muscle pain and diabetes, leading doctors warn.

They say NHS proposals to radically increase the uptake of the drugs are a ‘public health disaster’ that will cause harm to many patients.

The group – which includes cardiologists, and senior GPs – is urging the government and the NHS drugs watchdog NICE to halt the plans. They also claim that eight of the 12-strong panel of experts who are drawing up the guidelines have financial links to drugs firms making statins – which stand to make a profit.

About seven million patients in Britain take statins to lower the cholesterol in their blood to prevent heart attacks and strokes. They are predominantly given to over-65s who have been diagnosed with heart disease or have a high risk of developing it based on their family history or lifestyle.

But in February, NICE – National Institute for Health and Care Excellence – published draft guidance advising GPs to prescribe statins to anyone with a 10 per cent risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke within the next decade. It claims this could save many lives at a minimum cost to the NHS as the drugs cost as little as 10p each.

Experts say this would lead to the drugs being given to between five and ten million additional patients.

NICE will publish its final guidelines next month.

But the group of doctors say there is no evidence that giving statins to healthy people increases their life expectancy.

On the contrary, they point to evidence showing they increased the risk of diabetes in middle-aged women by 48 per cent and cause fatigue and muscle pain.

The group also accuse NICE of looking only at evidence about benefits and possible side effects of statins that have been provided by drugs firms, which could be biased.

The leading doctors also argue that rather than prescribing statins, the NHS should be encouraging patients to lose weight and take more exercise.

In a letter to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt and NICE, they wrote: ‘The consequences of not withdrawing this guidance are worrying: harm to many patients over many years, and the loss of public and professional faith in NICE as an independent assessor.

‘Public interests need always to be put before other interests, particularly pharma [the drugs industry].’

Professor Simon Capewell,  professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Liverpool,  one of the doctors against the move, said: ‘The statin recommendations are deeply worrying,  condemning all middle-aged adults to lifelong medications of questionable value.’

Dr Malcolm Kendrick,  a GP  and member of the BMA General Practitioners sub-committee, who is also a member of the group said: ‘Who knew that millions of people  in the UK now suffer from statin  deficiency syndrome? Mass statination is a triumph of statistics over common sense.

‘Treating millions at a cost of billions based on data we are not allowed to see is an example of the corporatisation of medicine and will result in a public health disaster.’

And Dr David Newman, director of clinical research at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, said: ‘For most people at low risk  of cardiovascular disease, a statin will give them diabetes as often as it will prevent a non-fatal heart attack.’

In response, Professor Mark Baker, director of the Centre for Clinical Practice at NICE, said: ‘Cardiovascular disease maims and kills people through coronary heart disease, peripheral arterial disease and stroke. Together, these kill one in three of us. Our proposals are intended to prevent many lives being destroyed.’

And now for the punch line:

Concerns have been raised that eight of the 12-strong panel recommending widespread use of statins have financial links to the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture them.

They include Dr Anthony Wierzbicki, chairman of the NICE panel and a heart disease specialist at Guys and St Thomas’ Hospital in London, who has ties to six firms, including Pfizer, Sanofi and Aventis, which sponsored his research into cholesterol-lowering drugs.

Dr Michael Khan, a heart specialist at University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, has been paid by drug companies investing in heart drugs to give lectures and sit on advisory boards. They include Amgen, a US firm which makes statins that has sponsored him to run a clinical trial.

Emma McGowan, a specialist heart nurse who also works at University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, was sponsored by statin manufacturers AstraZeneca for the first year of her job. She was also paid by the same firm to attend conferences.

Dr Robert Dermot Neely, heart specialist at the University of Newcastle, has been paid by statin makers Roche, Genzyme and Aegerion to sit on advisory boards.

The experts declared these conflicts of interest to NICE. The Mail contacted them for comment but did not receive a reply.

I have lost about 10 lbs in weight in the last few months so that may be one reaon the level has fallen. My new GP did not mention diet and exercise as the Mail article above suggests.

I did ask if I could reduce the levels by diet ( not that I want to reduce it as it seems a level just above 7 could be protective, from what I have read) but she repeated that her advice was that I should take them.

I object to taking them as I have read a lot on the subject and the number needed to treat is very high; a lot more than 1 in 50 whilst the chance of them causing me damage is much greater.

It seems bizarre that I am being recommended to take a drug which has the potential to damage my liver, this potential must be quite high or she would not be telling me to take a blood test for liver function a month after starting on statins.

Does any one know what being "exception reported as a non-complier" means?

She probably thinks you don't understand the science - but I understand it the same way you do. The thought of "everyone over 40" being given them scares me to death. But darn the woman - it is MY/YOUR body and like you, I see no reason to poison it with them to make money for the drug companies. 

As to diet; I have read many conflicting stories about how diet affects cholesterol as it does notcome directly from what you eat. Eskimoes eat masses o blubber - whole fat yet have low cholesterol. My doctor said there was no need for me to stop butter or bacon.

I have a feeling the levels are tied to genetics as my mother also has a cholesterol level of about 6 (at age 82). Her doctor has pushed her to take statins bu she got tsme side affects as me.  told her that,at 82, it's probably a bit late to worry about cholesterol levels.

I think with diabetes it may be a bit more crtical as the disease can give a higher rsk of heart attack and stroke.

I don't understand what your doctor is saying but she may be under pressure to place patients on Statins so she will record you as having been offered but refused. It is very unlikely she would want to shed you as a patient because of that; it sound like she is not very good at communicating since all current instructions are to put patients at the heart of their treatment and give them full control over all aspects of their treatment.