Statins - side effects

[mjr]

recent studies have suggested the pains seem more prevalent in individuals with low vitamin d levels.

Until there's a lot more evidence, I'm treating this suggestion to take vitamin D (which I've now seen on several websites) as probably a revised repeat of the suggestion for statin pain sufferers to take Co-enzyme Q10 which I feel was used to persuade us to keep taking the tablets for another few months despite the crippling side-effects.

[531colin]

I took statins for years with no side effects.
Now I can't tolerate the things at all.
If I take them, I can't put my socks on by myself, and first thing in the morning I have to go downstairs backwards.
Please don't tell me i'm making it up, because i'm not. I'm also not making a huge fuss about it....its a known side effect, and I get it...no drama required.
If you read the package insert, it says that these side effects are more common in people with lower body weight, and older people. I'm lighter than I have been for years, and guess what?....I've never been this old before.

[Mick F]

^^^^
Wot he said.

[georgew]

I took statins for years with no side effects.
Now I can't tolerate the things at all.
If I take them, I can't put my socks on by myself, and first thing in the morning I have to go downstairs backwards.
Please don't tell me i'm making it up, because i'm not. I'm also not making a huge fuss about it....its a known side effect, and I get it...no drama required.
If you read the package insert, it says that these side effects are more common in people with lower body weight, and older people. I'm lighter than I have been for years, and guess what?....I've never been this old before.

The above duplicates my experience exactly. Unable to get down the stairs as my ankle joints would refuse to take my weight....unable to use a hand to grip as my wrist stops operating....having to lie down when dressing when overcome with extreme fatigue....dreadful cramps...no appetite..fungal infections and an unbroken series of urinary tract infections which resisted all antibiotics as a result I suspect of a compromised immune system. All these happened before the publicity regarding Statins and I had to actively research the causes of the effects as certainly my GP never mentioned them despite multiple visits.
I would not presume to advise anyone to stop using Statins but can only state that since stopping taking these the above complaints have all disappeared and for the first time in many years I feel like a proper human being again.

[Mick F]

This thread is running and running.

Cast your minds back to my issues with sky-high cholesterol from a genetic family trait.
Since complaining about the statins, they tried a different dose, but it was still terrible.

I'm now on fortnightly injections, and tomorrow is "Injection Friday" as I take them every other Friday.
Tomorrow will be my 19th injection ............ that's 38 weeks since I started.

No symptoms whatsoever, and although I have a blood test every now and again .............. there's nothing to report, because I'm normal and the doc is happy .......... and so am I.

[661-Pete]

This thread is running and running.

Not really. Mea culpa - I bumped it after a 6-week hiatus, although having contributed little prior to then.

Guys, I hear what you're saying. I'm not disputing that the nasty effects you've been experiencing are real. Just want to make this point.

My father died suddenly and unexpectedly of a massive heart attack at age 60. This was 46 years ago. He had been a reasonably healthy and active man up till then, taking regular exercise (alas not cycling: he was more into calisthenics). He also kept a reasonably healthy diet, and was a non-smoker and a non-drinker. Of course medical technology was nowhere near as advanced back then, as it is now. I don't even know whether statins existed: certainly he never took any to my knowledge. His only medication that I knew of was peritrate tablets which he took when he felt occasional bouts of angina.

I am now 67, having surpassed his age by almost 7 years already. I'm not ready to snuff it any time soon, though no doubt my time will come....

I am fortunate: I think that in my case the simva is helping, and without the side effects. I sympathise with those for whom this is not the case.

So - by all means state your experiences, but please don't subscribe to the trend of demanding the abolition of this drug. For many of us, we need it!

[mjr]

So - by all means state your experiences, but please don't subscribe to the trend of demanding the abolition of this drug. For many of us, we need it!

I don't think that I'm demanding abolition but I think I would say that statins are probably being overused at the minute and that medics spent too long dismissing legitimate reports of problems.

The interesting question is whether inhibiting HMG-CoA reductase long term like statins do is a good idea. As far as I know, no one has that happen naturally, unlike the PCSK9 inhibition which is the basis for Mick's injections that does occur to a few people naturally apparently with no other complications.

[531colin]

I don't think you can abolish a drug.
I don't think pressure from a fringe group will lead to statins being taken off the market, simply because there is good evidence from population-based studies that they can offer a benefit to people who have had a stroke or a heart attack already. This is apparently due to stabilisation of plaques.....its inflamed/unstable plaques that shower off thrombus into your circulation and cause the problems.
If I had experienced any symptoms (angina, heart attack, stroke, TIA) then i would have to consider taking the statins and putting up with the side-effects. Before I started getting side-effects (around 67 years of age, as it happens) I took statins for years and years, initially prescribed for me because my brother had a TIA, then because my blood chemistry wasn't between the numbers. And why not, if there are no side-effects, and there might be a benefit?
But now that there are side-effects, and there might not be a benefit, my decision has gone the other way. YMMV.

[softlips]

I don't think you can abolish a drug.
I don't think pressure from a fringe group will lead to statins being taken off the market, simply because there is good evidence from population-based studies that they can offer a benefit to people who have had a stroke or a heart attack already. This is apparently due to stabilisation of plaques.....its inflamed/unstable plaques that shower off thrombus into your circulation and cause the problems.
If I had experienced any symptoms (angina, heart attack, stroke, TIA) then i would have to consider taking the statins and putting up with the side-effects. Before I started getting side-effects (around 67 years of age, as it happens) I took statins for years and years, initially prescribed for me because my brother had a TIA, then because my blood chemistry wasn't between the numbers. And why not, if there are no side-effects, and there might be a benefit?
But now that there are side-effects, and there might not be a benefit, my decision has gone the other way. YMMV.

Quite right, perceived risk versus perceived benefit.

I see the coronary arteries of people who take them and those that don't daily. And I know which I'd prefer. When we talk about the biggest positive impact in cardiology over our lifetimes, statins nearly always come out on top.

[mjr]

I see the coronary arteries of people who take them and those that don't daily. And I know which I'd prefer.

But why do you get to see the coronary arteries of those particular people? In the 30+ years since diagnosis and about 10 years on statins, I've never seen mine.

[531colin]

.............. the coronary arteries ............. I've never seen mine.

Now, that would be quite a trick.......might be enough to persuade me to take the damned things!

[531colin]

..........I see the coronary arteries of people who take them and those that don't daily. And I know which I'd prefer. When we talk about the biggest positive impact in cardiology over our lifetimes, statins nearly always come out on top.

I'd be very interested if you could similarly compare the arteries of septuagenerians who cycle 100 miles a week with those who don't....

[AlaninWales]

When we talk about the biggest positive impact in cardiology over our lifetimes, statins nearly always come out on top.

Really? So Statins have a bigger impact on cardiology than diet? Or environmental pollutants? Or exercise?

Can you link to the evidence for that please?

[531colin]

"Softlips" is in the medical business, i would guess.......(Shades of "Hotlips" in M.A.S.H., although maybe thats just my age and imagination running riot... ).....and probably sees on a daily basis things that would be (for other folk) the stuff of nightmares.
The patients' notes will say unequivocally if Statins are prescribed or not; on the other hand, the patients (lifetime?) exposure to pollutants and poisons of any kind cannot even be guessed at, and I would take patients' reporting of their dietary and exercise habits with a large pinch of salt. (pun intended)

[Vorpal]

When we talk about the biggest positive impact in cardiology over our lifetimes, statins nearly always come out on top.

Really? So Statins have a bigger impact on cardiology than diet? Or environmental pollutants? Or exercise?

Can you link to the evidence for that please?

Evidence? Unfortunately, it's mixed, even if softlips is a fan.

There are large numbers of studiesthat show reduced cardiovascular events for those on statins. As result, most studies and literature reviews are like that linked above: very positive about the benefits.

When it comes to mortality, however, the efficacy of statins is limited. http://www.positivehealth.com/article/h ... -deception has a good summary, although the author may be biased against the use of statins, his statistics is sound. I've seen other experts put the mortality benefit at around 1 death prevented for every 500 people treated. Either way, it's much lower that you might expect, reading the first atricle. The first study seems to indicate that many of the side effects associated with statins have other causes, but https://www.statineffects.com/info/ found otherwise.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... ool=pubmed could be one reason for some of the differences in results.