Statins Benefit Healthy People, Not Just High Cholesterol Patients
The BBC news site explains that:
The study of 17,800 men and women with normal cholesterol levels found rosuvastatin [a type of statin] cut deaths from heart attacks and strokes.
The people involved in the trial all had high levels of the protein "high-sensitivity C-reactive protein" (CRP) which indicates inflammation inside the body. They did not have high cholesterol levels, or a history of heart disease.
The researchers concluded that:
In this trial of apparently healthy persons without hyperlipidemia but with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels, rosuvastatin significantly reduced the incidence of major cardiovascular events.
(The full text of the study is available online from the New England Journal of Medicine.)
The study was presented at the recent American Heart Association convention, and reactions from experts have been mixed.
- Some believe that patients should be more frequently tested for CRP and that statins should be prescribed more often.
- Other experts think only people with heart disease risk factors (smoking, high blood pressure, being overweight) should be tested for high CRP, and that more research is needed to show that the benefits of statins are greater than the risks.
Statins have occasionally been linked to muscle deterioration or kidney problems, as well as memory problems. During this trial, the New York Times reported, "there was no increase in muscle or kidney problems for those taking the statin. There was a small increase in diabetes."
Ultimately, this study could mean that patients formerly not considered as being at high risk of heart disease are given preventive treatment early on. The study indicated that even those participants whose only risk factor was high CRP benefited.
26 Comments
Add Your Comment
ADVERTISING
New
- FROM DIET BLOG
- On-Off Fasting: Does It Work?
- 400 Calorie Fix
- 5 Factor World Diet
- Quick Giveaway: Powerhouse Weight Loss Game
- FORUM
- Low Carb Atkins Diet- Tips to Cut the Carbs.
- How Can I Gain a Healthy Weight and Keep it?
- How Do I Eat Healthy at University?
- Starving Myself and Exercising, But Not Losing an Ounce?
Categories
| Body Image Celebrities Diet Pills Diets Exercise |
Fast Food Funny Stuff Success Stories Teens and Kids Tips and Tools |
RSS Feed
Follow @DietBlog on Twitter
Does it strike anyone else as counterintuitive that we appear to be hinting that everyone might benefit from taking statins? Sure, if medical and nutritional science were anything other than embryonic in its understanding of the human body I could imagine they might have found a panacea of some sort. But it's not, and we haven't. Fast forward 10 years and no doubt we'll be reading all kinds of stories about why so many people should not have been given statins.
ReplyI'm with you - we seem to love popping the latest pills. It's the supposed quick and easy fix, and who knows what else we're upsetting in our bodies that down the line is going to come back to haunt us when they find out that: "oh dear, you know those statins we told everyone to take? Er... well... seems they caused x,y and z."
I don't know if any of you read the April 2008 Readers Digest in which they had a chilling expose titled:
Reply"Can we trust the FDA?" Personally I have very little faith in a lot of the self-funded research put out by pharmaceutical companies who often have powerful lobbyists promoting their cause and who often have representatives on the ill-funded FDA as well.
Yes, it does strike me. Further it strikes me that this study (if you dug into it) was most likely funded either in part or wholly by the drug industry. Lipitor is the most prescribed drug in the world. I've been on statins for years and ache constantly (yes I get regular blood tests to be sure things aren't going wrong) They keep my cholesterol in complete check and in my case probably keep me alive, but one thing we should NOT be doing is giving a drug to healthy people. Boy, that's got to be a w** dream for the drug industry huh??
ReplyWow has anyone read the study,because it seems a little fishy to me.It was funded by AstraZeneca which would stand to make quite a bundle of money if this study showed favorable results.
If you look at the study there are a few things that stand out right away :1.Why was the study halted midway through the original time plan; doesn't it seem like they were trying to cover up potential long term damage this drug does? 2. They were very picky on who they would let join the trial so in the end they don't get real world results they get the best odds at the results they wanted 3. If this drug is so great then what happened to the 25% that dropped out of the study.
Even if you did take this study seriously you would have to admit that if you factor in the diabetes that the overall benefit is minimal.
ReplyCereal - this is the sad state of research funded by companies who have a financial motive (and sadder still that as research is so expensive only those who stand to gain from it financially can afford to dot it). There are sooooo many ways to skew the data for their purposes.
And if they are honest enough to do real research and it doesn't find what they need it to - it just gets buried!
ReplyI wouldn't say that the good studies get buried they just never really surface. I wouldn't put all the blame on big companies, the media who gives these studies their buzz never seem to have anyone actually read them so I think they deserve some scorn as well.
ReplyI think you're right about that. There is a very interesting bit of research about this whole aspect at:
www.soc.ucla.edu/faculty/saguy/saguyandalmeling.pdf
ReplyI think it's awesome that all the comments so far are full of skepticism. I'm with all of you. Stay off drugs unless you absolutely need them to stay alive, and even then, exercise caution, get a second or third opinion, and find out if a natural alternative exists.
ReplyOn the skeptical side, here's a convincing analysis on just what's wrong with this study:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/11/when-news-sounds-too-good-statins-new.html
Replycan "studies" even be trusted anymore? specially ones funded by these companies? i think we need a study on humans and our fascination with the latest pills with the word 'breakthrough' attached to it.
ReplyI can guarantee you that the drug companies funded this study or are paying the scientists conducting the studies.
ReplyOnce at the hospital, I saw a pharmacy student wearing a T-Shirt that read, “Drugs are my Life!”
Seems a lot more people than pharmacy students are wearing them now :-(
ReplyIMHO, one major flaw here is that people with high levels of CRP are being called healthy in regard to this study. Very misleading if you ask me!
ReplyDrug companies are so full of it. I saw a commercial the other night for a drug that is an antidepressant to help your current antidepressant work better. How ridiculous is that? Leave it up to drug companies to promote drug use by perfectly healthy people. That's pretty much their game, isn't it?
Meanwhile, how many people are we going to see in the future with messed-up livers due to taking statins starting at age 20?
ReplyI have been suffering from Ahrythmia that seems to be caused by inflamation around the heart that only subsides after bowel movements (kidneys) releasing litres of urine over a short period of time. Does anyone know if this could be helpful in my situation where I am overweight with high blood pressure but low Cholestral and sugar? (Local Cardiologist can't help).
ReplyI'm usually in favor of skepticism, but it's gone a little overboard here. They'll do followup studies to confirm the results.
If you get clear results early, why continue the study for 3 more years? Why not publish so someone can start followup studies 3 years earlier? They already know the long term effect of the drug because other people have already been taking it long term.
I think this is good news. Pills are relatively cheap and heart attacks are expensive and deadly.
So many people want to attack the drug companies because they make money. I want to thank them for developing the lifesaving drugs.
ReplyHave you read the study Ben; if you have then tell me how these are worth the risk.
I pointed out in my first post why I was skeptical of their results, and even then the numbers that they got in a totally favorable scenario were not that beneficial.
ReplyI'm not sure what your point is. So the study group was carefully selected. So that means the drug has only shown to help certain people. Those people might get the drug and the benefits. A completely separate set of people won't get the drug until more studies are done showing a benefit for them. What's the problem?
As for "not that beneficial", avoiding a heart attack seems pretty beneficial.
Followup studies are clearly needed. It's a good thing they can get started now instead of waiting for 3 more years for the same people to say the same things.
ReplySince you seem to be having a problem figuring this out I'll try saying this is plainly as possible. This study was skewed to get the results they wanted, there is no proof that statins should be given to completely healthy people to prevent heart attacks.
Now if you want to rebut that tell me what in the study leads you to believe them.
ReplyWhat an utter load of B.S.. Giving medications, with "very serious" side effects, to healthy people. The drug industry will not be satisfied until every last person on the planet, that can generate revenue, is taking drugs. A healthy diet, exercise and managing stress are the keys to a long and healthful life. Not taking dangerous drugs. We should be spending our valuable resources on cleaning up our planet and food supply from dangerous toxins, not manufacturing toxins to give to health people. If you don't believe that the drug companies are "manufacturing" reasons for people to take more and more of their expensive products, you are not living on this planet.
Replyi also do not trust these new pills that these companies are doing, they are adding lots of toxic products into them and they say that its natural. It may not have side effects in a short term, but on a long term basis. It really sad to see that people believe them and buy there products. There's a new drug that is becoming more and more popular these days, its the hcg pregnyl. there are tones of people that are buying them at http://www.drugdelivery.ca/s33559-s-HCG-PREGNYL.aspx. There are many friends that are using them and they say that it is not dangerous. But i stay away from all these and focus only on some NATURAL ways, that is only low carb diet and no junk foods.
ReplyDoes anyone know what the JUPITER study was looking for?
JUPITER stands for Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin
This is bad science. They went looking for proof that taking Crestor/Rosuvastatin as a preventative was a good thing...and they found it.
Here is a critical look at the science - http://healthhabits.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/crestor-dont-believe-the-hype/
Reply"Benefitted from taking statins"???? Statins are one of the most dangerous/worst medications that pharma invented...well documented on the net and off in many independent studies and literature. This is another pharma controlled 'study' to try to regain lost sales in statins I suspect (lost sales thru a more aware public). What a load of....
The whole cholesterol rubbish is well planned, selective disinformation that benefits the pharma driven medical industry.
Read about the dangers of statins on the internet...gradual but permanent loss of muscle strength, etc etc etc.
ReplyOh yeah...and statins are one of the biggest money makers for the pharma industry...cancer 'meds' being Nr. One which is why there never will be a 'cure' for cancer no matter what carrots are dangled before the (public) donkey nose.
ReplyIf you read the study, the number needed to treat (NNT) is 120. That means that for 120 people taking the statin, just one will benefit. Elsewhere, it is estimated that 15 percent of those taking statins will have serious side effects, particularly muscle weakness.
The study also seemed to reveal that the benefit was due to anti-inflammation properties of statins, not a reduction in a cholesterol number. And they stopped it at 2 years, instead of the originally scheduled 4. It looked like the data was "barely ahead" in favor of statins but the curves seemed to be headed towards convergence - and statins might not have been in the lead at 4 years. Stopping the study early "while we are ahead" is a time honored method of gaining positive results.
ReplyAll potentially eligible subjects underwent a 4-week run-in phase during which they received placebo. The purpose of this phase was to identify a group of willing and eligible participants who demonstrated good compliance during that interval.
Reply