Breaking News: Major Shift on Cholesteral

Options
13»

Replies

  • gabbygirl78
    gabbygirl78 Posts: 936 Member
    Options
    I disagree with the recommendation to increase bariatric surgery. Surgery should always be a LAST resort.

    And you disagree based on what exactly? Your personal opinion? Perhaps you should monitor some people with BMI's over 40 for ten years and see what happens to them if they fail to lose weight. It's probably not a good idea to wait until they've already had a couple MI's to intervene with major surgery.

    I agree!
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    I'm about as big a fan of big pharma as anyone else...but all of you saying it's going to benefit the drug companies the most...did you even read the thing? Getting put on generic statins aren't any kind of boon for big pharma.
  • sevsmom
    sevsmom Posts: 1,172 Member
    Options
    Hmmmmmmm as a health educator, I applaud the emphasis on lifestyle modification as the best bang for the buck. My former MIL got on cholesterol meds and after 3 or 4 months she hadn't had any improvement. She asked in her delightful way "what the sh!tfire h3ll am I taking this stuff for? It don't do nothing." I asked her if she had begun walking daily. No. Did you quit smoking? No. Have you mad a shift to healthy food choices. No. I asked her how much she thought 1 little pill could do for her when she wasn't willing to do anything for herself. God love her, but she believed pills could fix everything.

    I balk at the idea that just about any adult should be on a statin. Personally, I am working hard to avoid maintenance medication as long as I possibly can. I wouldn't want to take a medication if I didn't absolutely need it.

    Interesting article, though.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,020 Member
    Options
    I'm about as big a fan of big pharma as anyone else...but all of you saying it's going to benefit the drug companies the most...did you even read the thing? Getting put on generic statins aren't any kind of boon for big pharma.

    There are large businesses with deep pockets that spend money on lobbying that produce generic drugs. Whether or not you consider them to be part of "big pharma" is beside the point that people are making, which is that someone's financial bread is being buttered by vastly expanding the number of people who will be prescribed statins.
  • mtmkjr
    mtmkjr Posts: 2 Member
    Options
    Fun thing to remember; the doctor can write as many prescriptions for statins as they want. You are under exactly zero obligation to have them filled. Might want to keep this in mind when they start trying to up the statin prescriptions.

    Suit yourself! Just don't complain if the people on statins live longer!
    Also, possibly a dumb questions; the article says they have no idea what to target for ideal cholesterol, so their recommendation is to just toss cholesterol lowering drugs at people who may possibly have a heart attack. So, uh, why? If we don't know what we're shooting for as far as cholesterol numbers go, what are we trying to achieve with the cholesterol lowering drugs?

    Because multiple large well designed studies have consistently demonstrated that statins increase lifespan in patients that meet the new criteria. We used to think everything was about cholesterol levels, and therefore assumed that the effect of statins was due primarily to how they improve cholesterol. And that may still be the case, but things are much more complicated than just a simple cholesterol number.
    They are also much more complicated than a simple drug.
    I looked at the census numbers. Approx. 39% of the 310 million in this country are over 45. Assuming those would be the main targets, and using the number they estimate needing the drug at 72 million people (based on a positive answer to 1 out of 4 risk factors).... that's 60% - nearly 2 out of 3???

    And just because the drugs are mostly generic now doesn't mean there isn't money to be made. Who makes the generics? Money can be made by selling an expensive product to a few people or selling a low cost product to many people.
  • mtmkjr
    mtmkjr Posts: 2 Member
    Options
    Even if every single person is prescribed the generic statin (which of course is not the case), at $10 every 3 months... someone is bringing in $2.88 Billion/yr.
  • SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish
    SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish Posts: 831 Member
    Options
    Pretty crazy. This goes in the face of many recent studies saying medicating for high cholesterol is harmful in many cases. Really sounds like some people got paid big pharma money in the AHA.

    Most statins are generic. So this isn't a conspiracy by big pharm. The recommendations are designed to keep people alive longer, and they're based on the best available data.

    Sure statins can have side effects. But in terms of longevity, you're better off taking them if you meet the new criteria which really aren't all that aggressive. If I had heart dz, DM, extremely high LDL, or a significant risk of heart attack in the next ten years I'd be demanding my doc prescribe me a statin.

    You have to watch out for these claims to "eliminate arguments" that are false. Generic statins is the line, but aside from it still indeed making money, new statins and patents recently came out and are probably still on the way out, and people are directed to take those new drugs, not the old generics. In fact there was a past article about this very situation, how an old generic statin seemed to work better with less side effects but it failed to be prescribed anymore because it was now considered "generic". I'll try to find it, however the whole "no we dont make any money off this" is false and does not eliminate the issue. Especially in view of the lack of heart attack reducing cause and effects seen in lowering cholesterol to certain levels admitted by doctors and several studies, and reputable doctors dropping out of the commission. The other concerning issues: what about the study showing 4-5x/week exercise (2.5hrs) has more than double the effect of a statin, and 20-30% lowering vs 40-50% statin in other studies and why is that not prescription #1? Why is easily available cheap B3 which also does a lot of the work of a statin not also co-prescribed with exercise instead of prescribing something expensive with side effects? The effect of exercise is also REDUCED by statins. Now couple this with the lack of direct high cholesterol to heart attacks link noted over several studies...I wont be on statins.

    If you take this into the broad scope, looking at those guidelines, almost every person over 40 would be on statins because the "risk factors" in the calculator are so low for threshold. So yes, there are many very serious concerns about this "guideline", and the lines of "not making any money" and the very fact that even statin use has more benefits than negatives is proven, are both looking untrue.
  • JUDDDing
    JUDDDing Posts: 1,367 Member
    Options
    I disagree with the recommendation to increase bariatric surgery. Surgery should always be a LAST resort.

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1200111

    Actually for Diabetics, having the surgery can reverse the condition, even if they are of a healthy weight.. so it shouldn't always be overlooked because its "The easy way out"

    So can diet.

    http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/diet-reverses-type-2-diabetes#.UTbt5hykoz4
  • JUDDDing
    JUDDDing Posts: 1,367 Member
    Options
    Nobody is forcing anybody to shove Rx down our throats. They can sure try.

    Somewhat amusingly, I read that "Rx" as Rocky Road while I was skimming this page. :)
  • Yanicka1
    Yanicka1 Posts: 4,564 Member
    Options
    Bump
  • illuvatree
    illuvatree Posts: 185 Member
    Options
    Articles like this scare me and tempt me into staying vegan or vegetarian for the rest of my life.
  • AbsoluteNG
    AbsoluteNG Posts: 1,079 Member
    Options
    Just had a conversation with my brother and cousin about this, both are pharmacist, they brought it up that there are new guidelines for statins and they feel that it is ridiculous because under the new guidelines this would mean that 70% of the population should be on statins and that the only group of people not using statins would be those who have low enough levels which are children. They joked that it could be a drug company influencing these new guidelines.
  • SapiensPisces
    SapiensPisces Posts: 992 Member
    Options
    In to follow commentary. I'm interested in this topic, and if anyone has some good articles based in science on the subject that they'd care to share, I'd appreciate it.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    This article references studies throughout. Whether the conclusions he draws are accurate I can't say.

    Diet-Heart Myth: Statins Don’t Save Lives in People Without Heart Disease
    http://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-statins-dont-save-lives-in-people-without-heart-disease
  • FredDoyle
    FredDoyle Posts: 2,273 Member
    Options
    I was prescribed them but stopped taking them after my muscles started to ache. I also researched them quite a bit.
    What they don't tell you is the number needed to treat (NNT)
    Ask your doctor what the NNT is for the drug they are prescribing.
    For Crestor, that's 200. ie. If 100 people took them for 2 years, they would prevent 1 cardiovascular event.
    Pretty far fetched odds for the claims they are making.
  • VBnotbitter
    VBnotbitter Posts: 820 Member
    Options
    Hmm looks like Im going to be spending part of the afternoon on cochrane and ovid comparing for and against statins research. I cant open the original article in the OP.

    For what its worth, purely anecdotally and not based on data, I do see a lot less acute coronary syndrome than I used to, and most emergency physicians I know credit this in part to use of statins. All drugs have side affects but that doesnt mean that everyone who takes that drug will experience them. Personally based on what I currently know if I had high cholesterol that I couldnt reduce by life style change, I would rather risk the chance of the side effects than ending up a cardiac cripple or stroking out.

    By the way "Big Pharma" may be very concerned about profit margins but modern medicine has significantly improved morbidity and mortality over the last centuary or so. You could try considering what your life might be like without it.
  • rtfmtech
    rtfmtech Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    I disagree with the recommendation to increase bariatric surgery. Surgery should always be a LAST resort.

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1200111

    Actually for Diabetics, having the surgery can reverse the condition, even if they are of a healthy weight.. so it shouldn't always be overlooked because its "The easy way out"

    So can diet.

    http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/diet-reverses-type-2-diabetes#.UTbt5hykoz4

    I never said diet Couldn't... but it doesn't work for everyone.
  • ldrosophila
    ldrosophila Posts: 7,512 Member
    Options
    I disagree with the recommendation to increase bariatric surgery. Surgery should always be a LAST resort.

    Huh? Cant read the post how does an article on cholesterol=bariatric surgery. What is up with physician's lately every last one of them is knife crazy. I work with one MD who still feels that it should be a last ditch option. The rest are ready to cut the fatties open. Even my OB was saying well after you deliver maybe you want to consider it...I'm like uh I lost 70lbs doing my own thing thanks for the advice doc but no thanks.

    sorry didnt mean to go off on a tangent but ive been seeing it everywhere lately. It's because they dont know what to do about obesity.

    It especially is insane when they won't cut you open for any other surgery if you're obese, but something as invasive as bariatric surgery where you could die, is acceptable. I guess their reasoning is that being dead is better than being fat. I've had two doctors recommend the surgery to me even though I was there for a checkup and had no health complaints.

    Cholesterol 192
    HDL 37
    LDL 113
    Triglyceride 100

    Ac1 5.8
    BP 128/65
    BMI 63.5

    I wish you the best, but it would be very unusual for someone with your BMI to maintain those cholesterol levels, A1C, and BP for long haul. You're body is still handling the extra weight okay at the age of 44 which is great. But eventually that BMI will catch up with you.

    FYI, primary care doctors are NOT surgeons and don't see a single cent of that money bariatric surgeons make. Furthermore most primary care docs seem to actually dislike surgeons. They're recommending the surgery based on the data that shows your long term prognosis is not looking good unless you lose weight.

    I've been this BMI for 20 years I am most concerned with my AC1 and raising my hdl. I am 44 years old. I am active and have no joint pain. I am sure they meant well, but why would I risk my life because at some point I might get sick? If you monitor your diet you can keep your numbers good with or without weight loss. I have started adding exercise since I went from an active job to a call center where I sit for 10 hours 4 days a week. Losing weight is not my goal. Eating healthy and exercise is. I have given up soda and sugary drinks. I am interested in what my next Ac1 will show. I enjoy using this tool to monitor my intake.

    It's easy to use. I was over my daily goal I think once because of a family gathering. I have it set to lose 1lb a week, but I won't be tracking my weight. I don't have a scale and I think when people focus so much on the numbers that leads to depression and reverting to bad habits because they're discouraged when those numbers aren't what they expect.

    Keep up the hard work remember me even for WLS the recommendation is to eat less and move more

Categories