Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, May-17-12, 01:07
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,731
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default UK: All over 50s should be taking statins

Quote:
From The Telegraph
London, UK
17 May, 2012


All over 50s should be taking statins

Everyone over the age of 50 should be given statins because they reduce the risk of a heart attack even in healthy people, a study has found.


The risk of a heart attack or stroke is cut by a fifth in those who have no sign of heart disease, shows research by scientists at Oxford University.

Treatment guidelines should be reviewed in light of the findings, the experts said, and the NHS should impose a blanket policy of prescribing up to 20  million people statins at a potential cost of £240 million a year.

Currently, the only people considered at high risk, those with a one-in-five chance of having a heart attack in the next 10 years, are given the cholesterol-lowering drugs.

Half of men aged 50 or over and almost a third of women qualify for statin treatment. About five million people are thought to take them.

National guidelines should be amended to lower the threshold for treatment to those with a one-in-10 risk over a decade, the experts said.

As the majority of people in their fifties would qualify for statins under this criteria, it would be cheaper and easier to implement a blanket policy to save money on screening tests — which cost up to £700 per patient — to identify them, it was argued.

The cost of statins, £1 for a month’s course, would also be offset by the savings they would bring to the NHS in preventing costly operations, medical procedures, rehabilitation and by freeing ward space and places in care homes. A total of £1.3 billion is spent annually on cardiovascular drugs alone.

The proposed statins programme would be controversial, as many believe it is unnecessary to medicate otherwise healthy people, and it is not clear how many would take the tablets if they were not experiencing symptoms.

Prof Colin Baigent, co-author of the study, said: “If we want to prevent heart attacks and strokes that come out of the blue in people with no previous evidence of problems — and about half of such events happen in the absence of any prior history of disease — then we have to identify and treat people who are currently healthy but are known to be at increased risk of developing heart disease. Such treatment should, of course, be in addition to obvious things like encouraging better diet, more exercise and avoidance of cigarette smoking.”

A National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence spokesman said the study findings will be included in the ongoing review of the clinical guidelines on cardiovascular risk assessment and treatment.

The study analysed data from 175,000 people in 27 random trials which compared people on statins with those on a dummy pill.

Researchers found that for every one-point reduction in levels of bad cholesterol in the blood, there was a 21 per cent reduction in the risk of serious events, including heart attacks, strokes or surgery for blocked arteries among those with no symptoms of heart disease.

The risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke among those at lowest risk was cut by 15 per cent.

For every 1,000 people in the low-risk group treated with statins for five years there would be 11 fewer major heart attacks or strokes. “A benefit that greatly exceeds any known hazards of statin therapy,” the authors wrote.

Side effects of statins can include muscle aches, stomach disturbances, and altered liver function. Patients have also reported sleep and memory problems, depression and headaches.

There was no evidence of a rise in deaths from cancer, the authors said, and although there was a small increased risk of a “bleeding stroke” (a burst blood vessel in the brain) and more people were diagnosed with diabetes in the statin group, these were outweighed by the benefits of the treatment.

In an accompanying commentary article, Prof Shah Ebrahim from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: “The benefits of giving statins to everyone over the age of 50 would probably save the NHS money in the long run, owing to the savings in health care costs from the heart attacks and strokes prevented.”

The findings were published online in The Lancet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...ng-statins.html



Ridiculous! There's absolutely no way that I'd agree to take statins.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, May-17-12, 01:42
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,731
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials

Summary

Background

Statins reduce LDL cholesterol and prevent vascular events, but their net effects in people at low risk of vascular events remain uncertain.

Methods
This meta-analysis included individual participant data from 22 trials of statin versus control (n=134537; mean LDL cholesterol difference 1.08 mmol/L; median follow-up 4.8 years) and five trials of more versus less statin (n=39612; difference 0.51 mmol/L; 5.1 years). Major vascular events were major coronary events (ie, non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death), strokes, or coronary revascularisations. Participants were separated into five categories of baseline 5-year major vascular event risk on control therapy (no statin or low-intensity statin) (<5%, ≥5% to <10%, ≥10% to <20%, ≥20% to <30%, ≥30%); in each, the rate ratio (RR) per 1.0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction was estimated.

Findings
Reduction of LDL cholesterol with a statin reduced the risk of major vascular events (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.77—0.81, per 1.0 mmol/L reduction), largely irrespective of age, sex, baseline LDL cholesterol or previous vascular disease, and of vascular and all-cause mortality. The proportional reduction in major vascular events was at least as big in the two lowest risk categories as in the higher risk categories (RR per 1.0 mmol/L reduction from lowest to highest risk: 0.62 [99% CI 0.47—0.81], 0.69 [99% CI 0.60—0.79], 0.79 [99% CI 0.74—0.85], 0.81 [99% CI 0.77—0.86], and 0.79 [99% CI 0.74—0.84]; trend p=0.04), which reflected significant reductions in these two lowest risk categories in major coronary events (RR 0.57, 99% CI 0.36—0.89, p=0.0012, and 0.61, 99% CI 0.50—0.74, p<0.0001) and in coronary revascularisations (RR 0.52, 99% CI 0.35—0.75, and 0.63, 99% CI 0.51—0.79; both p<0.0001). For stroke, the reduction in risk in participants with 5-year risk of major vascular events lower than 10% (RR per 1.0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction 0.76, 99% CI 0.61—0.95, p=0.0012) was also similar to that seen in higher risk categories (trend p=0.3). In participants without a history of vascular disease, statins reduced the risks of vascular (RR per 1.0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction 0.85, 95% CI 0.77—0.95) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85—0.97), and the proportional reductions were similar by baseline risk. There was no evidence that reduction of LDL cholesterol with a statin increased cancer incidence (RR per 1.0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction 1.00, 95% CI 0.96—1.04), cancer mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93—1.06), or other non-vascular mortality.

Interpretation
In individuals with 5-year risk of major vascular events lower than 10%, each 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol produced an absolute reduction in major vascular events of about 11 per 1000 over 5 years. This benefit greatly exceeds any known hazards of statin therapy. Under present guidelines, such individuals would not typically be regarded as suitable for LDL-lowering statin therapy. The present report suggests, therefore, that these guidelines might need to be reconsidered.

Funding
British Heart Foundation; UK Medical Research Council; Cancer Research UK; European Community Biomed Programme; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; National Heart Foundation, Australia.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...0367-5/fulltext
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, May-17-12, 07:04
Karhys's Avatar
Karhys Karhys is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 324
 
Plan: Primal-ish
Stats: 172/158/132 Female 5'2"
BF:
Progress: 35%
Location: Rural NSW, Australia
Default

I can barely put into words how absolutely horrified I am by this recommendation. Putting an entire age group of otherwise healthy people at risk of all the dreadful, awful, and well documented side effects of statins, all because of the false belief that lowering cholesterol is a good thing? How did this even get through?!

My favourite recommended read regarding statins:
http://stephanie-on-health.blogspot.co.nz/
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Thu, May-17-12, 08:39
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,863
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Oh, they make these ridiculous suggestions every now and then. There was one doctor here in the US saying they should be put in the water. Ignore it, they're delusional.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, May-17-12, 08:49
pinkclouds's Avatar
pinkclouds pinkclouds is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,164
 
Plan: Atkins-ish
Stats: 255/250/175 Female 65.5"
BF:Size 22/16-18/10
Progress: 6%
Location: Colorado
Default

Wow. Just... wow.
what really saddens me about this is all the $$ they are probably putting towards these "scientific" studies. What a waste.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, May-17-12, 09:01
patriciakr's Avatar
patriciakr patriciakr is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,734
 
Plan: CALP with Primal Leanings
Stats: 368/291.2/160 Female 5' 4
BF:toodmnmch
Progress: 37%
Location: In the woods
Default

What bothers me the most is the "we'll do this to save money in the long run". Medical decisions, laws, should not be made in order to save the government run healthcare money!
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, May-17-12, 11:34
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,863
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Dr. Briffa's response
Quote:
We’re told by the authors this meta-analysis that treating with statins prevented 11 major vascular events for every 1000 people treated for a period of 5 years. Put another way, 91 people would need to be treated for 5 years to prevent one major vascular event. Or in other words, only about 1 per cent of people treated with statins for 5 years will benefit (and about 99 per cent won’t).
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, May-17-12, 11:39
MizKitty's Avatar
MizKitty MizKitty is offline
95% Sugar Free!
Posts: 7,010
 
Plan: Very high fat LC/HCG
Stats: 310/155.4/159 Female 67 inches
BF:
Progress: 102%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
I can barely put into words how absolutely horrified I am by this recommendation.


Ditto. It's unbelieveable. I thought after the link to increasing risk if diabetes came out, maybe the tide would start to turn, but evidently not.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Fri, May-18-12, 11:24
Whofan's Avatar
Whofan Whofan is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,550
 
Plan: Low Carb Primal
Stats: 170/135/135 Female 5ft.6in.
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: New York Metro area
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by patriciakr
What bothers me the most is the "we'll do this to save money in the long run". Medical decisions, laws, should not be made in order to save the government run healthcare money!


Nor to save ANY healthcare provider, drug company, or insurance company money.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Fri, May-18-12, 12:49
KarenJ's Avatar
KarenJ KarenJ is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,564
 
Plan: tasty animals with butter
Stats: 170/115/110 Female 60"
BF:maintaining
Progress: 92%
Location: Northeastern Illinois
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC


This is why I come here so much- because I've finally learned how to read these studies and analyze them with my own little brain. Doesn't take much when you figure out the absolute risks and compare them with the "relative" risk that these people tout.

Quote:
Half of men aged 50 or over and almost a third of women qualify for statin treatment.


I thought that the NNT was 50, and only then for middle aged men who have already been diagnosed with heart disease, and zero benefit for women of any age?

Quote:
Prof Colin Baigent, co-author of the study, said: “If we want to prevent heart attacks and strokes that come out of the blue in people with no previous evidence of problems — and about half of such events happen in the absence of any prior history of disease — then we have to identify and treat people who are currently healthy but are known to be at increased risk of developing heart disease. Such treatment should, of course, be in addition to obvious things like encouraging better diet, more exercise and avoidance of cigarette smoking.”


Somebody isn't telling it like it is.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Fri, May-18-12, 17:29
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,675
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KarenJ
TI thought that the NNT was 50, and only then for middle aged men who have already been diagnosed with heart disease, and zero benefit for women of any age?


Yes. That's right.

Obviously, you are not a pharmaceutical executive!
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Mon, Jun-04-12, 10:51
aj_cohn's Avatar
aj_cohn aj_cohn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,948
 
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 213/167/165 Male 65 in.
BF:35%/23%/20%
Progress: 96%
Location: United States
Default

A postscript for this discussion related to NNT: There's a website dedicated to analyzing the risk/benefit by using NNT statistics for the U.S.

Check out the page for Statin Drugs Given for 5 Years for Heart Disease Prevention (Without Known Heart Disease).

Thanks to Dr. John Briffa for mentioning this site in a recent blog post.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Tue, Jun-05-12, 08:05
brobin's Avatar
brobin brobin is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 470
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 231/172/175 Male 70 inches
BF:30%/19%/17%
Progress: 105%
Location: Ontario
Default

Or, they could take a simply aspirin and get the same anti-inflammation response that has any impact.

Of course, statin makers won't make any money that way.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:39.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.