Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?

[RedEarth]

Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?
Research suggests that, except among high-risk heart patients, the benefits of statins such as Lipitor are overstated

By John Carey
Business Week
Cover Story January 17, 2008,

Martin Winn's cholesterol level was inching up. Cycling up hills, he felt chest pain that might have been angina. So he and his doctor decided he should be on a cholesterol-lowering medication called a statin. He was in good company. Such drugs are the best-selling medicines in history, used by more than 13 million Americans and an additional 12 million patients around the world, producing $27.8 billion in sales in 2006. Half of that went to Pfizer (PFE) for its leading statin, Lipitor. Statins certainly performed as they should for Winn, dropping his cholesterol level by 20%. "I assumed I'd get a longer life," says the retired machinist in Vancouver, B.C., now 71. But here the story takes a twist. Winn's doctor, James M. Wright, is no ordinary family physician. A professor at the University of British Columbia, he is also director of the government-funded Therapeutics Initiative, whose purpose is to pore over the data on particular drugs and figure out how well they work. Just as Winn started on his treatment, Wright's team was analyzing evidence from years of trials with statins and not liking what it found.

Yes, Wright saw, the drugs can be life-saving in patients who already have suffered heart attacks, somewhat reducing the chances of a recurrence that could lead to an early death. But Wright had a surprise when he looked at the data for the majority of patients, like Winn, who don't have heart disease. He found no benefit in people over the age of 65, no matter how much their cholesterol declines, and no benefit in women of any age. He did see a small reduction in the number of heart attacks for middle-aged men taking statins in clinical trials. But even for these men, there was no overall reduction in total deaths or illnesses requiring hospitalization—despite big reductions in "bad" cholesterol. "Most people are taking something with no chance of benefit and a risk of harm," says Wright. Based on the evidence, and the fact that Winn didn't actually have angina, Wright changed his mind about treating him with statins—and Winn, too, was persuaded. "Because there's no apparent benefit," he says, "I don't take them anymore."

Wait a minute. Americans are bombarded with the message from doctors, companies, and the media that high levels of bad cholesterol are the ticket to an early grave and must be brought down. Statins, the message continues, are the most potent weapons in that struggle. The drugs are thought to be so essential that, according to the official government guidelines from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP), 40 million Americans should be taking them. Some researchers have even suggested—half-jokingly—that the medications should be put in the water supply, like fluoride for teeth. Statins are sold by Merck (MRK) (Mevacor and Zocor), AstraZeneca (AZN) (Crestor), and Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY) (Pravachol) in addition to Pfizer. And it's almost impossible to avoid reminders from the industry that the drugs are vital. A current TV and newspaper campaign by Pfizer, for instance, stars artificial heart inventor and Lipitor user Dr. Robert Jarvik. The printed ad proclaims that "Lipitor reduces the risk of heart attack by 36%...in patients with multiple risk factors for heart disease."

So how can anyone question the benefits of such a drug?

For one thing, many researchers harbor doubts about the need to drive down cholesterol levels in the first place. Those doubts were strengthened on Jan. 14, when Merck and Schering-Plough (SGP) revealed results of a trial in which one popular cholesterol-lowering drug, a statin, was fortified by another, Zetia, which operates by a different mechanism. The combination did succeed in forcing down patients' cholesterol further than with just the statin alone. But even with two years of treatment, the further reductions brought no health benefit.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_04/b4068052092994.htm

.........related story.....

In the Real World, a Slew of Side Effects from Statins
A tennis-playing 68-year-old, Dr. H. Denman Scott was talked into taking Lipitor in 2006 by his doctor because his "bad" cholesterol (LDL) was a borderline 130. "I had no symptoms," he says, but he followed the doctor's advice, and the drug dropped his LDL to 60. Then Scott, a retired professor of medicine, began to have muscle pain. After 10 months on the drug, he woke one morning with paralyzing soreness. "I thought it was Lipitor-related," he says. "I'd seen it in a lot of people I had taken care of over the years." Scott stopped taking the drug, and two months later the aches went away.

In clinical trials of statins, side effects were relatively rare. But many doctors believe they are more common in the real world, afflicting perhaps as many as 15% of patients. After muscle aches, prominently mentioned on Lipitor's label, common complaints include cognitive problems ranging from mild confusion to loss of memory. Former astronaut and retired family doctor Duane Graveline says that he "descended into the black pit of amnesia" both times he was put on Lipitor, prompting him to write a book and set up a Web site on statins' side effects.

One trial also showed an association between statin use and cancer. Proponents argue that was an anomaly. "You need to look at the big picture rather than worrying yourself to death over individual trials," says Dr. Scott Grundy, the lead author of national guidelines for statin use and who has received honoraria from Pfizer (PFE). But the big picture is still fuzzy. The safety of statins in long-term use "is an incredibly important question for which we have very little data," says Dr. Beatrice Golomb of the University of California at San Diego.


http://www.businessweek.com//magazine/content/08_04/b4068057096279.htm

[grasswire]

1. very important article

Thanks. I've decided to refuse the statin rx that my cardiologist has suggested, based on what I've been reading lately. The evidence is overwhelmingly against it, IMO. My cholesterol is borderline. There's simply no need.

[bliss_eternal]

5. Good for you...!

:thumbsup: Be an informed consumer. Don't let anyone tell you different. Knowledge is power, particularly in these days of managed care and big pharmaceuticals.

If our society as a whole made an effort to be informed about what they put in their bodies, it could make a huge difference in the collective health of the nation.

[madrchsod]

2. eating correctly is better than these drugs

unless there isn`t any way to control cholesterol naturally then drugs are needed

[bliss_eternal]

4. ...there are other ways.

Definitely. :thumbsup:

Lots of patients simply aren't aware--and lots of doctors won't tell them. Practices make money based on the pharmaceuticals they can prescribe. They aren't going to make money from a patient that makes diet changes and takes inexpensive diet supplements. ;)

[TZ]

10. actually for some there is NO other way

My grandfather and great grandfather both died at age 56 of heart attacks. My dad is still doing well at age 67 because of lipitor. Look at all the atheletes who die of heart conditions as well.
Statins are LIFE SAVERS for people with genetic predispositions. And anyone who tries to claim otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about!!

[bliss_eternal]

23. Maybe...

...you could consider reading ALL of what people share in a thread....such as what I stated below:

Quote:
Of course, in some cases such modifications wouldn't help a patient, and then they should absolutely take appropriate meds (as stated in the article linked). It just seems that too many are giving them out without trying other options first. Too many patients aren't even aware of such options.

:eyes:

It's just oh so much fun to return to a thread, and see people honining in on part of your expressed views, and little else. I get that you ONLY read this post and are responding to it alone. But just thought you should know--there was more.

Glad that your relative is doing well, and got the help needed, btw.

[TZ]

29. I have YET to meet a doctor who doesn't say diet+exercise

FIRST. And I am tired of this ALL MEDICATIONS ARE TEH EVIL attitude that is spread in this forum. Most doctors aren't just pill prescribers. There are some like that yes, but not most IMO. I happpen to dislike stereotyping and bigotry of doctors and nurses that run rampant here.
As someone in medical research I am WELL aware of its flaws. And yes, some meds are overproscribed. But many people here seem to forget that before modern medicine came lifespans were much shorter and health issues much more severe. We see more people using statins because the life span is LONGER! Before statins so many people died of cardiac arrest early! In fact before coming to DU, I NEVER EVER heard anyone complain about statins. And now there are even GENERICS so its more affordable so the its all money making crap can be shut up as well.
Too many people on this board don't understand the science behind their meds and misuse them and then get hurt and it makes a whole industry look much worse than it really is (look at a thread sometime about how many people die from pharmaaceuticals to see this attitude, when most of the time its due to people not following the directions correctly).
If you took what is posted here as fact you would think Statins cause more deaths than they help, anti-depressants cause shooting rampages and all doctors care about is money. Which is a hideously distorted view of the world. Or at least the RATIONAL REAL world

[bliss_eternal]

32. Given, that this

...is my first or at least most recent appearance on this forum, I'm not at all aware of what people say on it frequently.

You seem to be missing what such comments mean. Or maybe you just don't want to think about what they mean, and that's certainly your right.

A lot of people aren't getting better w/certain medications. Those saying it see it or have experienced it personally. They are entitled to be angry and frustrated with the medical system for that. You are entitled to not be, as your experience doesn't warrant it. But you aren't entitled to be dismissive of those that are.

Just because your experience doesn't warrant it, doesn't mean these problems do not exist. If you don't like what's being said here, perhaps you shouldn't read it. People have the right to express themselves without attacks from you, because you haven't experienced what they have. Consider yourself and your family lucky that you haven't been dismissed by the medical establishment or given unnecessary medication to treat an issue that could have been remedied in less aggressive ways.

By the way, I in fact didn't say medication is evil. I did imply that big pharma is evil. There is a difference. You have the right to dislike what I say. You don't have the right to attack me for saying it. You NEED to believe in the system. Some of us, no longer do. If you don't like what we say, you have the right to not read it.

Attacks and stubborn attempts to engage in dismissive arguments may get you ignored. :)

[Warpy]

37. Some people have cholesterol above 300

after their diets have been corrected. They are genetically predisposed to have extremely high cholesterol produced by their livers and they genereally succumb to heart attack or stroke in their late thirties to late forties.

For these people, the statins are nothing short of miracle medications, adding a decade or more to their lives.

I do question their use in a general population without extremely high cholesterol and in whom dietary modification hasn't at least been tried, including oat bran.

[bliss_eternal]

39. Yes, you are correct...

...there are also those that oat bran wouldn't help, because they have other untreated issues that wouldn't respond well to oat bran. For example, in cases of celiac disease.

We could all present examples of exceptions to this situation or that, and probably even present links from all over the internet that support such arguments. Sorry, but I find that pointless. There's no harm in mentioning that there are sometimes other options.

Some here seem to be exercising selective reading. They simply choose not to see qualifiers like "some cases" in such statements and just hone in on one aspect that bothers them, the suggestion of options outside of medication. Or they just like to argue for the sake of arguing. :crazy:

I'm not really understanding why it's so difficult to admit that in some cases medications are overprescribed, and that people aren't given other options. Actually, that's not true--I do understand why. :eyes: I know exactly why. It just saddens me to see so many people, so willing to be dismissive of a larger issue.

[Warpy]

40. you might want to reassess that "why."

It's usually because taking a pill every day seems less inconvenient to the patient than changing his diet.

Never underestimate the power of inconvenience. People who actually make all the dietary changes they need to are a tiny minority and the problem isn't that they're not fully educated. It's that they don't want the inconvenience.

[bliss_eternal]

41. You might want to re-read my post .

Perhaps the others I've posted, as well. You and others here seem to be making assumptions about my comments, that don't exist in the context of my statements unless someone reads their own meanings into my words while ignoring what's there.

I wasn't referring to the patients taking such medications. My comments were referring to the people who have responded in this forum, with such negativity in response to a few posts suggesting "other options."

Btw, I speak to convenience in a couple of my posts (one example #34).

[chicagomd]

13. This statement is completely false:

"Practices make money based on the pharmaceuticals they can prescribe. They aren't going to make money from a patient that makes diet changes and takes inexpensive diet supplements."

Since you appear have no clue how it works here you go:

Physicians make money based off of the office visit. How much they charge depends on how complex the problem is, how much of an exam is done, and how much history is taken. Primary care physicians and physician practices are actually forbidden by law, with some very specific exceptions, from ownership in things like pharmacies and radiology centers to prevent them from have a financial incentive from ordering tests and drugs.

If you go see your family doctor and she takes a history, does a physical exam, and diagnoses a problem, that charge to you is going to be the same if she tells you to eat better, take a drug, or up the amount of fish oil you take.

If you want to try and treat your problem other ways than how your doctor wants you to that is on you, but at least make an attempt to understand how it works on our end and stop with the pharmacy/physician conspiracy garbage.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lizerdbits]

34. My BIL was given diet changes and drugs when his was high

He had it checked again later and the drugs were stopped because it was really low. He said the doctor was really surprised when he said he took the drugs and followed the diet. The doctor said "Nobody follows the diet!" I wonder how many people do try diet first?

My mom's is high but my dad's isn't and they pretty much eat the same stuff (she probably eats better than he does since he does get fast food when on the go). So she's one where diet alone isn't helping much.

[bliss_eternal]

36. Good (and valid) question...

Quote:
I wonder how many people do try diet first?

Probably not many. Sad, isn't it?

I'll be the first to admit that as a society, we are too busy to care for ourselves properly--and in some cases, too lazy.
Too many people would rather "take the pill" than taking the time to cook, and alleviate fast food, and processed, packaged convenience eating. A great many have grown up with such conveniences, and honestly don't know anything else.

I did work to change my diet first, but I know I'm a stubborn rare person. ;) My doctor would agree. lol.

[bliss_eternal]

3. Anyone that's really listened...

...to the commercials for these drugs, should wonder...given the extensive side effect possibilities.

The ads make me sad, given that in some cases high cholesterol is symptomatic of other untreated, underlying conditions (such as thyroid issues). Getting such issues in check (with the help of a skilled physician) frequently brings cholesterol down considerably. High cholesterol could be a clue to another issue that needs to be addressed. An issue that may go untreated if a patient is immediately offered drugs like these.

Some of the people being treated for cholesterol with these expensive drugs, could also bring their numbers down with changes to their diet, and/or with vitamin supplements (under a doctor and/or dietician's care of course).

It's ridiculous (in my opinion)that so many practices immediately prescribe these high priced pharmaceuticals, when they should be treated as a last resort.

Of course, in some cases such modifications wouldn't help a patient, and then they should absolutely take appropriate meds (as stated in the article linked). It just seems that too many are giving them out without trying other options first. Too many patients aren't even aware of such options. :(

:rant:

[kdmorris]

8. Doctors won't pursue those underlying conditions

For 2 years, I went from doctor to doctor to doctor trying to get them to give me a prescription for thyroid medication. My LDL cholesterol was 169-189, and my total cholesterol was 259-290 because of it. I also slept 14 hours a day and was gaining weight (75 lbs in two years). I ate well, lots of fruits and veggies and ate low-fat (no one mentioned the BENEFIT of fat then)

My TSH at that time ranged from 5.45 (barely in range) to 8.39 (out of range). And it took me two years to find a doctor who would give me thyroid medications (I was accused of "blaming my thyroid" because I was fat, told I wouldn't have any symptoms from a TSH like that, etc). During that time, I was prescribed a statin several times, an anti-depressant several times (the assumed cause of my sleeping 14 hours a day), but all of them refused to write a prescription for the underlying condition. I'm sure that the years of eating high carb, low fat meals is what finally killed my pancreas.

I started out on Synthroid, which didn't work very well for me and am now on Armour. My cholesterol is now 175 and my LDL cholesterol stays below 100. Luckily, I have a "holistic" doctor now, who doesn't listen to reports that all diabetics should be on statins. If I ever see a study that wasn't funded by Pfizer or other statin making companies that says they will prolong my life, I would certainly look into it. But, as of today, I'm not convinced and I won't take a medication that I don't need.

[bliss_eternal]

20. Sounds like...

you went through hell. I'm so sorry that you suffered that way. :hug:
You must be so relieved to have found the help you needed.

I appreciate you sharing what you endured. People need to know this. There's others that go through this and they need to know there is hope, and options other than overpriced pharmaceuticals that keep people ill, or make them sicker.

[kdmorris]

28. If it wasn't for finding out that other people went through this

I would have thought I was crazy. I started feeling like I was just nuts, because all of the doctors said the same thing (There were about 10 of them, before I found a doctor that would help me). I tried exercising and I would have to take three days off work to recover from it.

It wasn't until I found a thyroid support group on the internet that I started realizing that this treatment was the norm rather than the exception and it allowed me to find my voice, find my doctor and stand up for my own health. One of the women on Mary's site suggested a doctor (unfortunately, that one has retired) and when he was retiring, I found my own through cross checking pharmacies, scientific papers, and my insurance company's database of "allowed" doctors.

[Celebration]

21. Finding a doctor

I think Mary Shomon has a list of doctors (selected by her readers) that will actually listen to their patients regarding thyroid symptoms.

(It should be somewhere on the about.com thyroid site, for anyone who is interested in this approach.)

[bliss_eternal]

25. Yes...she does.

Thanks for sharing, for those that may need this information. :thumbsup:

[Celebration]

31. well, I agree and disagree with you

I certainly agree that there is something wrong with our health system, in that the drugs promoted to the public are the ones that are the most expensive rather than the older drugs that have been generic for awhile. I also agree that not only the patients, but the doctors fall into that trap. It is enough for me to seriously question whether I really want government funded medical care, because why should my taxes pay for the high cost of drugs that are given out practically indiscriminately, based on the marketing of big pharma.

Now, where I disagree with you is that I feel that doctors are not to blame, really. Mostly they want to do their jobs well, and help their patients feel better. Yes, they want to do it quickly so they can actually pay their expenses on the small profit margins actually allowed by insurance reimbursements. And most of them want to do it within the boundaries of what their colleagues do. But they don't give their patients the wrong drugs for some sort of profit motive. It is just way more complex than that, and their intentions are certainly generally good.

I've heard so many blankety blank ads for Paxil that I could scream. So one of my daughters gets upset about something and the first thing out of her mouth is "I think I need Paxil." She is just kidding, sort of. But this is the idea, isn't it? And even though more than half the benefit of the SSRIs is placebo, there are so many people on these things. I like the idea of placebos, but there are many more cheap and less harmful placebos.

But people go to the doctor expecting to be put on Paxil, or expecting to be put on a statin drug, because of the buzz. So, finally, the doctor does what is expected, and because of time constraints, may not get to the real issue involved. But the implication that this is some sort of intentional tort by the doctor is just wrong. Advertising for prescription drugs should be limited. Yes, I am a total free speech advocate, but any industry that is subsidized by the federal government (as is big pharma) should be subject to regulation for economic reasons. There is no free market operating in prescription medication. It is subsidized either by the government or by the insurance companies.

So even though I don't blame doctors for this situation, I don't really trust them. either. Frankly, I know more about my body than they do, thank you. They can get valuable testing done, and they prescribe drugs. When I need to go to the doctor I try to choose one that does not treat me in a cookie cutter fashion. My daughter who lives in the Pacific Northwest goes to someone with both an ND degree from Bastyr and a chiropractic degree. He is covered by her insurance and he can prescribe drugs. She loves this doctor. I have to say that I wish I had that option. Instead I generally go to an acupuncturist that can prescribe herbs. I do this even though I have to pay out of pocket. I think it is sad that it has come down to this. But face it, pharma not only markets to us, they market to future doctors by big subsidies to the medical schools, and by subsidizing medical journals by buying up large amounts of reprints of favorable studies to be distributed to doctors.

I would say that most doctors want to do the right thing, and they don't exactly realize that they are caught in this web. Ranting against doctors in general is not the answer.

[bliss_eternal]

33. I really like...

...what you state here:

Quote:
So even though I don't blame doctors for this situation, I don't really trust them. either. Frankly, I know more about my body than they do, thank you. They can get valuable testing done, and they prescribe drugs.

Great point! :thumbsup:

I've seen this in action. Too many doctors, unfortunately don't allow for the fact that most people know their own bodies. They know when their bodies feel good, feel stressed, aren't working appropriately, etc. There just isn't alot of allowance for when people's symptoms' don't present "the textbook" way.

Anyone that's ever been ill or in pain, only to be told "nothing's wrong because your tests are normal," has lost a certain amount of trust in doctor's and the system. Some blame the doctor's--some blame the system the doctors function in.

[Celebration]

35. the doctors are mostly victims

It takes way too much effort to buck the system. And some, in their way, do try. Most are nice, caring people. They may not feel brainwashed but many lament the time constraints. They really don't have time under our insurance system to diagnose anything a little out of the ordinary. Of course there are some really whacko doctors too, but there are not any more of them than in the general population.

There is way too much reliance on blood tests and other "objective" measures instead of actual symptoms (particularly in hypothyroid issues). Think about it, though-- this is across society, as we think we have to give students all this testing every year. It is as if our whole society has some sort of hangup about labeling and numbering people. It's kinda weird, to me. And doctors are REALLY ingrained with the idea, as they are constantly bombarded with needing insurance codes everywhere.

I went through the thyroid bit with my kids so I know where you are coming from. I am sure there are a ton of people on SSRIs and statin drugs that are really borderline hypothyroid and would be better off being treated for that. But that is all why we arm ourselves with knowledge. It is absolutely necessary for a patient to do that.

Despite my defense of doctors here, I really don't go to them unless I have a particular need. And that isn't often at all.

[bliss_eternal]

38. I agree with you to a degree...

...and (so you know) I don't see you as defending them as much as I see you presenting another perspective, with the knowledge that the system is indeed flawed in ways. You admit that, and I appreciate it. :) :hi: There's nothing wrong with offering another point of view.

Defending is what some others seem to have done here.
Unfortunately, some of the defending I'm witnessing seems, forgiving me for saying so...kind of naive.

I get where it comes from. We are all taught as kids (depending on when one grew up)that doctors are the good guys--the fixers, the healers, they want you to get better, etc. For some that image dies hard. They can't see doctors as they are--people with a job to do. Ultimately physicians are still human beings, as such, they are fallible, as we all are. But some elevate them in status, based on what they've been taught "a doctor is" and can't even allow others to be critical of that image, it seems sacred to them.

I'd like to believe that MOST are caring and want to help.
At present, I'm happy to say I see that in all of my doctors. I even have one that doesn't accept insurance, so he can treat patients as HE see's fit, not the way the insurance companies dictate.

But I'll be honest, I've seen my share of physicians that didn't seem to give a damn. Maybe they were burnt out. Maybe they were more about being able to say,"I'm a MD" than the work involved. Maybe they thought it would be a great careers and found out they weren't suited to the work, who can say for sure? There's people like that in EVERY career field, though--medicine is no exception.

[ladjf]

6. I don't know. But, I do know the oatmeal lowers bad cholesterol.

[Hannah Bell]

7. I'm glad to see this information getting mainstream play...

but it's been in research journals for years. This article makes it sound like the guy mentioned is the first to discover the less-than spectacular "benefits" of statins, the ineffectiveness for women & the elderly, the high numbers to treat, the serious doubt about cholesterol-lowering being the mechanism of action (v. anti-inflammatory properties). but there have been numerous studies saying the same things.

So in the face of this kind of evidence, why, I'd ask, were the prescribing guidelines changed in 2001 to recommend more aggressive use of statins, at lower cholesterol levels?

& why didn't this information break into the major media earlier, before thousands of folks threw away big bucks on drugs which probably gave them no benefit, & may have done some harm, since the evidence has been there since before 2001?

Maybe...

zocor patent protection expired 2006.
lipitor expires 3/2010

etc.

[cosmik debris]

9. "In clinical trials of statins, side effects were relatively rare."

Why are you all so anxious to believe the anecdotes, but totally unwilling to believe the data. Are you unable to understand the difference between anecdote and data?

[RedEarth]

11. Here is some more data on Lipitor from the article

...it's on page two of the six page article......in fact the entire article is worth reading......

DOING THE MATH

The second crucial point is hiding in plain sight in Pfizer's own Lipitor newspaper ad. The dramatic 36% figure has an asterisk. Read the smaller type. It says: "That means in a large clinical study, 3% of patients taking a sugar pill or placebo had a heart attack compared to 2% of patients taking Lipitor."

Now do some simple math. The numbers in that sentence mean that for every 100 people in the trial, which lasted 3 1/3 years, three people on placebos and two people on Lipitor had heart attacks. The difference credited to the drug? One fewer heart attack per 100 people. So to spare one person a heart attack, 100 people had to take Lipitor for more than three years. The other 99 got no measurable benefit. Or to put it in terms of a little-known but useful statistic, the number needed to treat (or NNT) for one person to benefit is 100.

Compare that with, say, today's standard antibiotic therapy to eradicate ulcer-causing H. pylori stomach bacteria. The NNT is 1.1. Give the drugs to 11 people, and 10 will be cured.

A low NNT is the sort of effective response many patients expect from the drugs they take. When Wright and others explain to patients without prior heart disease that only 1 in 100 is likely to benefit from taking statins for years, most are astonished. Many, like Winn, choose to opt out.

Plus, there are reasons to believe the overall benefit for many patients is even less than what the NNT score of 100 suggests. That NNT was determined in an industry-sponsored trial using carefully selected patients with multiple risk factors, which include high blood pressure or smoking. In contrast, the only large clinical trial funded by the government, rather than companies, found no statistically significant benefit at all. And because clinical trials themselves suffer from potential biases, results claiming small benefits are always uncertain, says Dr. Nortin M. Hadler, professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a longtime drug industry critic. "Anything over an NNT of 50 is worse than a lottery ticket; there may be no winners," he argues. Several recent scientific papers peg the NNT for statins at 250 and up for lower-risk patients, even if they take it for five years or more. "What if you put 250 people in a room and told them they would each pay $1,000 a year for a drug they would have to take every day, that many would get diarrhea and muscle pain, and that 249 would have no benefit? And that they could do just as well by exercising? How many would take that?" asks drug industry critic Dr. Jerome R. Hoffman, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_04/b4068052092994.htm

[cosmik debris]

12. I see a couple of problems right off the bat.

Comparing the NNT for a treatment of a non-fatal disease to the NNT for a treatment for a fatal disease is bogus. It is a straw man, a red herring, a misdirection play. Saving one person from an ulcer is good, but saving one person from a heart attack is priceless.

Heart attack is not the only result of high cholesterol. Did they measure the incidence of stroke? TIAs? Atherosclerosis? Angina?

And their statistical analysis is atrocious! "Anything over an NNT of 50 is worse than a lottery ticket; there may be no winners," That's too fucking stupid to waste band width on.

[tandot]

14. They do a lot of good...

...for the pockets of pharmaceutical corporations

[Bruce McAuley]

15. My PA has been after me to take statins for years now...

And I did for a while, but after getting sore muscles I quit.
I have never seen proof that taking them made me have more or less heart attack risk, even though they dropped my cholesterol numbers significantly.
I just never believed the test's validity in the first place.
I'll be interested as to what he thinks the next time I see him.
On edit, my cholesterol runs about 280 or so, normally, and it has been the same for a decade. I did have a heart attack 17 years ago, got my vein opened with the balloon method(pre stent era), and told to be careful.
It doesn't seem to matter what I eat, my cholesterol runs the same.
Runs in my family, but my dad didn't die of a heart attack, nor did my mother..

Bruce

[TZ]

30. 3 of 4 grandparents died of heart attack/heart related issues

No one in this generation( or my parents) of my family has had ONE heart attack. Many of us are on statins.
Nuff said.

[NGinpa]

16. Sooner or later, Americans may start to figure this farce out!

Is it only me, or are many , many drugs sooner or later found out to be dangerous or at least minimally effective. Meanwhile we have something like 75% OF ADDS on TV in the evening telling Americans to take this and that drug! No wonder we have a drug problem and a healthcare system problem in this country. There is no mission to really discover the truth before marketing, and people are treated by the system as targets for every snake-oil idea that can make money for someone. Shouldn't the system's mission be to give everyone access to better health, and never hurt anyone because they did not have the inof or IQ to outguess the distorted system??

[arikara]

17. Thank you for posting this

My Mr is in the hospital right now with a heart condition. I've been questioning the need for statins for years, his cholesterol has never been an issue. And I've been noticing the side effects have been increasing such as muscular pain, and episodes of confusion. I have the dilemma of believing they are doing harm to him with all their pills and devices, but having to allow him to make his own decision for his treatment. Its such a worry.

Here is another recent article about the wonder of statins.

Considering that tens of millions of Americans now take statins to lower cholesterol, the following headline was conspicuously absent from the major media this month: “Statins Found To Turn On Gene That Causes Muscle Damage.” It’s now a fact of science; a new study shows that taking statins destroys your muscle to a greater or lesser degree. And let’s not forget that the heart is a muscle.

Place this study juxtaposed to another rather interesting recent finding: the more fit you are the longer you will live – and the two just don’t add up. How can you destroy muscle and be more fit? You can’t. Sure you can drug your cholesterol number lower, but will you be healthier, fit, and live longer?

In the new study researchers found that statins activate a gene signal in muscles called atrogen-1. When this gene activates, it targets key muscle proteins for destruction. The activation of this gene drives the process of muscle atrophy and muscle wasting. It is induced in cardiac muscle in failing hearts. Why on earth would any person want this gene activated by a drug?

...

more: http://www.newstarget.com/022374.html

[cosmik debris]

19. I hope you realize

that the site you quote is very biased and unreliable.

The author of the article is NOT a doctor, he is a nutritionist and salesman for his diet books.

[arikara]

24. I know... as I'm sure you're also aware

that the studies quoted by the proponents for these dangerous drugs are extremely biased. And their industry is a heck of a lot bigger than selling a few diet books. They stand to lose billions when the truth comes out.

I believe that it is important for us to take responsibility for our own health and read everything with a critical eye.

[Celebration]

18. uh oh

Does anyone wonder (like me) if the advertising department of Business Week just might get a few calls?

[tbyg52]

26. Hey, I feel smart!

Or lucky. Turned down hormone therapy many years ago (saw no sense in being treated for non-existent menopausal symptoms), have been waffling on statins without yet taking any for a few years.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.