Cycling UK Forum

Jdsk wrote: ↑23 Jun 2023, 4:24pm

joeegg wrote: ↑23 Jun 2023, 4:16pm There is an enzyme produced when taking statins that causes muscle inflamation. The enzyme level can be picked up in a blood test. I was told changing the type of statin would not alter the enzyme effect.

The most commonly used biomarker for damage to muscle cells is creatine kinase in plasma (or serum). It's normally present within muscle cells and is released when they are damaged. That damage could be from inflammation. It doesn't "cause muscle inflammation".

https://labtestsonline.org.uk/tests/cre ... se-ck-test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine_kinase

Jonathan

Do you take statins Jonathan?

What's the bets I'll not get an answer or a straight answer to that last question?

Cowsham wrote: ↑24 Jun 2023, 10:29am What's the bets I'll not get an answer or a straight answer to that last question?

I’d hoped to see a straight answer for

joeegg wrote: ↑23 Jun 2023, 4:16pm
...
Are doctors "incentivised" to advise patients to take statins ?
...
GPs in England operate under the Quality and Outcomes Framework. Here's the guidance for 2023/24:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/u ... 023-24.pdf

How QOF points are converted into income isn't simple:
https://practiceindex.co.uk/gp/blog/qof ... 4-summary/
https://support-ew.ardens.org.uk/suppor ... prevalence

I found 3 links to hundreds of pages much above my head disappointing. As Jonathan didn’t like to put his head above the parapet I’ve assumed that yes they are incentivised.

Paulatic wrote: ↑24 Jun 2023, 11:10am

Cowsham wrote: ↑24 Jun 2023, 10:29am What's the bets I'll not get an answer or a straight answer to that last question?

I’d hoped to see a straight answer for

joeegg wrote: ↑23 Jun 2023, 4:16pm
...
Are doctors "incentivised" to advise patients to take statins ?
...
GPs in England operate under the Quality and Outcomes Framework. Here's the guidance for 2023/24:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/u ... 023-24.pdf

How QOF points are converted into income isn't simple:
https://practiceindex.co.uk/gp/blog/qof ... 4-summary/
https://support-ew.ardens.org.uk/suppor ... prevalence

I found 3 links to hundreds of pages much above my head disappointing. As Jonathan didn’t like to put his head above the parapet I’ve assumed that yes they are incentivised.

I don't have an issue with the information he posted.

Do you take statins Jonathan?

Please make the case, succinctly and politely, as to why that piece of personal info. is relevant to the discussion.

Cowsham wrote: ↑24 Jun 2023, 11:19am

Paulatic wrote: ↑24 Jun 2023, 11:10am
I found 3 links to hundreds of pages much above my head disappointing. As Jonathan didn’t like to put his head above the parapet I’ve assumed that yes they are incentivised.

I don't have an issue with the information he posted.

Excellent then having read them can you give me your conclusion to the question asked by @joeegg

simonineaston wrote: ↑24 Jun 2023, 11:34am

Do you take statins Jonathan?

Please make the case, succinctly and politely, as to why that piece of personal info. is relevant to the discussion.

Just want to know if "he" has any "skin" in the game but for more than just the reasons you're probably thinking of and btw I know he's not a doctor. It's more relevant to all the rest of us reading this . Disclaimer -- I'm not on statins and I don't think Jonathan is or will ever be on them.

Paulatic wrote: ↑24 Jun 2023, 11:41am

Cowsham wrote: ↑24 Jun 2023, 11:19am

Paulatic wrote: ↑24 Jun 2023, 11:10am
I found 3 links to hundreds of pages much above my head disappointing. As Jonathan didn’t like to put his head above the parapet I’ve assumed that yes they are incentivised.

I don't have an issue with the information he posted.

Excellent then having read them can you give me your conclusion to the question asked by @joeegg

I don't have one sorry.

Cowsham wrote: ↑24 Jun 2023, 11:45am

Paulatic wrote: ↑24 Jun 2023, 11:41am
Excellent then having read them can you give me your conclusion to the question asked by @joeegg

I don't have one sorry.

Aww never mind I still applaud you for wading through them.

roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑22 Jun 2023, 6:41am

mjr wrote: ↑22 Jun 2023, 12:10am

roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑21 Jun 2023, 8:43pm There is good evidence that many, perhaps nearly all reported side effects from statins are due to the nocebo effect - the same side effects are reported from placebo.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying- ... ebo-effect

The zombie study rises again! Previously discussed around viewtopic.php?p=1550383&hilit=Nocebo#p1550383 Only 60 subjects used from a pool of 300, selected in a way that excluded those most likely to suffer real side effects and with no attempt to accommodate memory side effects. It is not good evidence of what you say.

But it is excellent browbeating fodder.

When it comes to browbeating, you're doing pretty well, particularly on that thread you've just linked to.

I've not told anyone they'll die if they don't follow my advice. I've even told those who want to take statins how best to do it and linked to the NHS advice that doctors often ignore and almost never show patients. I'm a rubbish browbeater!

The study is very good evidence that many reported side effects are due to the nocebo effect.

It really isn't. If I cherry pick a small sample of candidates least likely to have real side effects, I could show most people are suffering nocebo for many meds.

Of course, statins do have side effects, and some people are intolerant to them.

Hurrah! Acknowledgement!

NICE patient guidance for deciding if you want to take a statin.

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg181/ ... -243780159

( apologies if it's been linked previously )

mjr wrote: ↑24 Jun 2023, 1:01pm

roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑22 Jun 2023, 6:41am

mjr wrote: ↑22 Jun 2023, 12:10am

The zombie study rises again! Previously discussed around viewtopic.php?p=1550383&hilit=Nocebo#p1550383 Only 60 subjects used from a pool of 300, selected in a way that excluded those most likely to suffer real side effects and with no attempt to accommodate memory side effects. It is not good evidence of what you say.

But it is excellent browbeating fodder.

When it comes to browbeating, you're doing pretty well, particularly on that thread you've just linked to.

I've not told anyone they'll die if they don't follow my advice. I've even told those who want to take statins how best to do it and linked to the NHS advice that doctors often ignore and almost never show patients. I'm a rubbish browbeater!

The study is very good evidence that many reported side effects are due to the nocebo effect.

It really isn't. If I cherry pick a small sample of candidates least likely to have real side effects, I could show most people are suffering nocebo for many meds.

Of course, statins do have side effects, and some people are intolerant to them.

Hurrah! Acknowledgement!

Very odd.

As someone who's recently started taking statins, I've been keeping any eye on this topic for a while, hoping I could benefit from readers' experiences. However, the most obvious things I've learned are that the whole subject remains contraversial, even amongst clinicians, let alone the many, many folk who've been taking them - or not - for ages. I also recognize that a great many commentators have difficulty seperating their own point of view from an epidemiologial view point - only natural, of course!
At the end of the day, we just have to trust our own judgements I suppose and fortunately, I'm on a low dose and heretofor at least, haven't spotted any side effects worth worrying about. If any do crop up, I'm confident my GP will be happy carry out her promise to discuss alternatives.
It's certainly got the potential to be a complicated subject to discuss and I'll continue to look for sundry good reads, although I think that by now, I've pretty much got my head around the broad brush strokes! Thanks to all, as usual, for all the various contrib.s, especially links to the resources that have proved illuminating.

Low dose, ok, I reckon.

It was me with VERY HIGH cholesterol count that was the problem.

Brother in law went for a test many years ago, and found he was high - genetically. He made sure the three daughters were checked, and they were ok. They got onto their mother - my older sister - and told her to get checked. She said that she wasn't "related" to their father, just married to him, but they persisted ................ so she went for a test.

She was quite high, even higher than brother in law, so she phoned me immediately and I found out I was much higher than she was!

She's still on statins and isn't concerned or affected by them ............ she says.
After ten years, I'd given up with them, but maybe I was on a bigger dose than she still is. I must ask her.

As someone who is likely to be starting on statins soon, Atorvastatin 20mg, I have been following this topic with obvious interest.
I have come to the conclusion that I will take them and hope for the best.
I have a cycling chum who had a triple bypass op a year or so ago, so I asked him about his experience with them.
Before he knew he had to have an operation he was put on statins, after two weeks he was in so much pain he dialled 111 and was told to stop taking them.
After his operation he was put on a different low dose statin and was ok with it for a while, but after a year he was in so much pain all over he stopped taking them as instructed.
Which brings us up to date, he has now been given another statin to try.
As said previously both me in-laws are on statins and are trouble free, I can only hope I am as lucky as them.