Statins - side effects

[mjr]

I have been told not to start taking them yet as I have to have a blood test first, which I will have later today.
the test is to check cholesterol level, so don't know if I will still need to take the statins if my level is normal but no doubt the doctor will let me know.

I suspect that they will feed the cholesterol level into the scoring method, where it will replace the average (by age and postcode IIRC) values used without it. I think it's unlikely to lower a 33 score below 10, so you'll probably be told to take the pills. They should also be checking liver and kidney functions, if I recall correctly, and retest in a month or three to make sure the statins haven't sent anything wildly wrong.

For most people, one should start with 10mg of Atorvastatin and then increase the dose to reduce the risk of problems. See https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drugs/atorvasta ... s-and-dose Too many GPs seem to think they know better or don't want to spend the time and start people at 20 or 40mg, which may be why side-effects are reported far more widely than in carefully-monitored tests that obey the dosing instructions.

[Vetus Ossa]

Thank you mjr, yes i will or will not start on 20mg

[simonineaston]

I was certainly started on 20mg atorva., followed by blood tests for liver / kidney function. All good in the hood, no side effects and the relevant cholestoral now in normal range. Happy Days

[Vetus Ossa]

I was certainly started on 20mg atorva., followed by blood tests for liver / kidney function. All good in the hood, no side effects and the relevant cholestoral now in normal range. Happy Days

I know a lot of people do have nasty side effects fron reading the pages here, but both of my in-laws take them without issues, will have to see how I react to them.

[Vetus Ossa]

One of the problems is I am no longer a patient at my surgery, I am a number and it will probably be down to me to sort out any problems.

[Mick F]

531Colin said that the lighter you are and the older you are, the more you will suffer from statin side-effects.

Further on on this thread, it was suggested by Vetus Ossa that he wasn't at risk of a heart attack ................... and neither was I. Not in the slightest.

Read this thread start to finish if you want, but (and at again) in a nutshell, I asked my doc and the specialist too if I was at risk of a heart attack.
Both answered no.

I asked why I was being prescribed statins.
I was told that my cholesterol was way too high.
I asked if I was fit and healthy, and told yes.

I asked again if I was at risk of a heart attack
Both answered no.

So, why am I taking statins? I asked.
Because you are at risk of a heart attack.

The answers didn't make sense, and they weren't consistent, and they knew it.

Sod the statins.
Common sense is the way forward.

[mjr]

I was certainly started on 20mg atorva., followed by blood tests for liver / kidney function. All good in the hood, no side effects and the relevant cholestoral now in normal range. Happy Days

To be clear, starting high does not guarantee side effects, but evidence suggests it makes them more likely. It's all a probabilities game.

[hondated]

Thank you to everyone for replying to my postings & I will take on board Jonathan the gravity of what you have written.
Rather than try & respond to individual suggestions I will try the self help advice that has been suggested & see whether by doing so my condition improves
It might just be time to buy an Ebike. But before I do I would just like to see whether I can get my legs to feel lighter & not struggle to get out of a comfy chair.
Reading Colins contribution it does seem that I could be having similar experiences so I will initially take half of a 40mg Statin for two weeks & then stop taking them for two weeks to see if my legs improve. If they do I can then contact the Cardiologist to ask if I can take an alternative.
Funnily enough one of my cycling friends also has a non cycling friend who struggled to find the right Statin as well
We're currently on holiday as I write & this week I have been using the hotel pool so I am hoping that too will help my legs. Thanks again to everyone for your advice .

[Jackson]

I have only just come across this thread but it reminded me of when I started to take statins.

After a routine blood test last October I received a text from my GP saying that my recent bloods had shown my 10 year risk of coronary heart disease and stroke is higher than they would like a 23% and pointing out that one way to reduce this long-term risk is to take statins to control cholesterol.

I visited the GP and he persuaded me to take atorvastatin (20mg). (I’ve been taking them ever since and apart from a few days feeling a bit muzzy when I awoke of not had any side-effects). As I left the surgery I picked up a copy of my blood test results. These showed my cholesterol results to be within the normal healthy range as they have always been. I looked into Qrisk and found I could work my own out online. I used Qrisk3 but the surgery used an earlier version. Very similar but the later version was slightly more sophisticated (e.g. rather than a single BP reading is a requirement to add standard deviation).

I worked out my reading to be 21.8%. Not much different but it then said the score of a healthy person with the same age, sex and ethnicity was 23.1%! As far as I can see the most significant factor in the raised reading was that 2 days before my blood test I had my 75th birthday!

[531colin]

Mick F has told us that he has familial hypercholesterolaemia. Most people taking statins don’t have that.

And yet some of us with FH were involved in the original trials for early statins and I don't recall reading that we're thought to be any more at risk of side-effects than the general population, nor is FH shown as a risk-increasing attribute in that recently-reposted graphic, unlike exercise.

I make that 2 contributors to this thread who have familial hypercholesterolaemia and get injections to lower cholesterol.
I am old enough to remember when FH was a death sentence; is it possible that;
1. People with FH who experience statin side effects are offered a treatment which isn't a statin due to the seriousness of their condition.
2. People who are prescribed statins because they fall foul of some fairly arbitrary scoring system** are told their symptoms are imaginary and are browbeaten into taking the damned things anyway?

** I think I was scored by the QRISK system, which took account of my age, my sex, and the fact I was being treated for high blood pressure, and ignored that I was cycling 100 miles a week and was a sensible weight.
I wonder if Vetus Ossa's score reflects that he can do 50 miles on an E bike?

I will be 76 this month. If it comes down to a straight choice, I would rather be in a position to be reasonably active for a year or two than eke out a couple more miserable years struggling to put my socks on.
It would be nice to think I was being included in the decision making, but all I got was "If you won't take the statins, then I won't check your cholesterol."

Just to re-emphasise; I took statins for years with no side effects. If you don't get side effects, then its happy days.

[mjr]

Mick F has told us that he has familial hypercholesterolaemia. Most people taking statins don’t have that.

And yet some of us with FH were involved in the original trials for early statins and I don't recall reading that we're thought to be any more at risk of side-effects than the general population, nor is FH shown as a risk-increasing attribute in that recently-reposted graphic, unlike exercise.

I make that 2 contributors to this thread who have familial hypercholesterolaemia and get injections to lower cholesterol.

I hope you're not counting me as one.

I am old enough to remember when FH was a death sentence; is it possible that;
1. People with FH who experience statin side effects are offered a treatment which isn't a statin due to the seriousness of their condition.
2. People who are prescribed statins because they fall foul of some fairly arbitrary scoring system** are told their symptoms are imaginary and are browbeaten into taking the damned things anyway?

1. Non FH people should still be offered non statin treatments, but some like the injections are more readily offered to FH people. See the numbers in https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta393/ ... mendations

2. I am almost certain it is happening. A blood relative stopped statins after varied problems similar to mine but has since been scared by her doctor back onto them and problems seem to have returned. But you can't force people to stop any more than start and some people are very trusting of doctors, even overconfident ones.

I would like to see studies of whether the discouragement of exercise outweighs the benefits of taking statins, but there's probably no money in that answer to fund the research.

[531colin]

deleted....couldn't get the quotes to work!

[531colin]

I make that 2 contributors to this thread who have familial hypercholesterolaemia and get injections to lower cholesterol.

I hope you're not counting me as one.

I'm afraid I was, on the basis of your post on 13th March 2020.....longer ago than i realised until I tried to "quote" it.
Sorry if I'm wrong/out of date etc........is "non-statin medication" correct rather than "injections" ?

[mjr]

I make that 2 contributors to this thread who have familial hypercholesterolaemia and get injections to lower cholesterol.

I hope you're not counting me as one.

I'm afraid I was, on the basis of your post on 13th March 2020.....longer ago than i realised until I tried to "quote" it.
Sorry if I'm wrong/out of date etc........is "non-statin medication" correct rather than "injections" ?

Yes, currently Bempedoic Acid, which is a drug currently only recommended for FH people AFAICT.

The injections ultimately made most of my skin fall off, as posted on 25 Feb 2021. I'm glad they work for Mick F, but they really didn't work for me, even though they did lower my cholesterol.

[531colin]

So......
1. if you have familial hypercholesterolaemia you may be offered "non-statin" medication to control your cholesterol levels
2. if you don't have FH but fall foul of one of the various "scoring systems" and you complain of statin side effects you are unlikely to be offered "non-statin" medication. Instead you may be browbeaten into persisting with statins (and side-effects) or refused cholesterol testing.

You could almost conclude that the people administrating the "scoring systems" don't have absolute faith in them.