Statins

Why is the thread headed 'Statins'? Are you on them, or has the doctor suggested you should be on them?

It takes that long for blood results to get back to our surgery. GP would want confirmation before starting you on any necessary meds.

I suppose it depends what the tests are for, but I can usually ring up for the results of my blood tests (blood count and inflammatory markers) after three days. When it was urgent, my GP got the result the same day. There's surely no reason for waiting two weeks if the patient is really at serious risk.

if you had been at serious risk would the GP not have sent you straight to hospital ? I went to GP a few years ago, he took my BP and I was admitted to hospital immediately, I went straight from the surgery in an ambulance, they wouldn't even let me walk.

She wants to put me on Statins and I told her my view on them.
My last Doctor wanted me to take them and I said, no, I will go on a 6 month low fat diet. I stuck to it and my cholesterol came down to 6 from 9.
She said that she doesn't use the 'common' statin. I spoke to a friend who is a nurse and she Said that there is a 'better' statin.
Does anyone have experience of these.

DH has been on these for some time to control his MEGA cholesterol reading and he is fine and not dead which is important to us. Perhaps your GP also had other concerns about your cardiac health when she took your vital signs and your medical history. Sometimes doctors use shock tactics to get us to change our lifestyle or to get us to comply with medication regimes. If you feel at all ill you will of course go straight back to her won't you?

Last Sunday's Sunday Times has an article on all this. It is an eye-opener, and basically says that the level of "normal" was so arbitrarily chosen as to be meaningless.

Here are some extracts:

" but over many years of researching medicine, I have come to realise that some of our most widely believed medical “facts” are based on almost no evidence at all. They just came to be. And this makes them highly unlikely to be true."

One professor presented "a graph which showed quite clearly that cholesterol levels of 5.2. to 6.2 were definitely in the normal range and carried no increased risk of heart mortality in ........ above 6.2 there is a decrease in risk for women."

The levels considered normal apparently arose out of a research institute in America who set it at 5.2 so that they would have enough people to constitute a study - if they had set it higher they would have had problems recruiting enough participants. Europe then rounded this down to 5.
They discuss similar processes for deciding what is a normal blood pressure and normal BMI - in the latter studies have shown that people with a BMI of 25 - 30 live longer than those with a "normal" BMI of 19 - 25.

My cholesterol is 5.8, with a preponderance of "good" cholesterol - so I stay very clear of any drugs!

That's what I have read too, Mishap, and yet doctors have been told to make the high cholesterol number even lower than it had been set at.
the common statin is Simvastatin and is to be avoided at all costs.
it is the one most associated with muscle pain and muscle weakness, and I can vouch for that having had three years of back pain and pain in the upper arm as a result.I came off them and the arm pain went away in days, and the muscle weakness gradually got better that year. the back pain and weakness took a lot longer, but eventually cleared.My DH is now taking statins, but refused the Simvastatin and they gave him another that has lower risk of this happening.So far he is ok.He is on alert though, just in case.

OH is on small dose of Simvastatin - his cholesterol is ridiculously low, but they keep him on it because of his heart irregularity. He also has PD and I sometimes wonder if it increases his weakness.

I trusted my GP and went on Simvastatin. I didn't realise for while that the pains in my legs were due to taking these tablets. I was having problems with both my achilles tendons and assumed the pains were part of it.

It affected my leg muscles making them weaker. The pains went when I stopped taking the tablets and initially I refused to take a different tablet. I managed to avoid a blood test for almost three years but was 'collared' by a highly efficient locum doctor when I went with another problem. My cholesterol is 7.2 although the hdl is high. I was unsure about taking statins again and abided by my regular GP's advice in the end and am on Atorvastatin. So far I have not had any problems and am due another blood test in two months. I am still not very happy about taking the Atorvastatin. Has anyone else taken it?

Yes Liz I am taking Atorvastatin, GP took me off Simvastatin because he said it was not suitable for long term use in over 65s.
I resisted taking statins for a while but after I was taken to hospital I took GP's advice and took medication. It took more than six months before my body got used to the drugs and palpitations settled down.

rosesarered and Liz46 I note your comments about the Simvastatin... .
I have been on it for several years.

You say you came off Simvastatin and your symptoms of aches and pain disappeared in days.
Did you just stop cold turkey, or did you wean yourself off them gradually.

My aches and pains, weakness and tiredness are a real burden but were there to some extent pre Simvastatin..
Yes, I had heard that Simvastatin could cause muscle ache but kind of thought that all medications have great long lists of side effects.

It was a while ago Coolgram65 so I can't be sure but I think I just stopped cold turkey.

I have not noticed any problems after taking Atorvastatin for nearly a month but will be interested to see what the next blood test in two months shows. My last one about 5 weeks ago was taken just after I returned from holiday where I had enjoyed a duty free on the balcony every evening after a meal out. Talk about timing! Anyway, much to my husband's amazement, my liver is fine. On the side effects for Atorvastatin apparently the liver can be affected. I really don't want to read them all in detail for now though.

I read the Sunday Times article to with great interest about how so called 'norms' are reached in clinical medicine. I did medical stats as part of my first degree which did throw up a lot of this debate. I suppose I was most interested in BMI calculations as I am always trying to prove to myself current levels are wrong.

When I was nursing I was forever taking what looked like abnormal test results (outside the recommended range) to doctors who then made a decision for themselves about whether the result was acceptable because they would weigh this against the other signs and symptoms, medical history and lifestyle the patient was presenting with.

I usually have a good debate with any doctor about what he/she is wanting to advice/prescribe for me but in the end they know so much more than I do - that's why we consult them. I have just come to a joint decision with my consultant over a drug commonly prescribe for Lupus as the side effects which are commonly experienced can be pretty nasty. Together we will just monitor the disease process and weigh up the risks.

Interesting reading. A friend was put on Simvastatin after having 2 heart attacks, even though her cholesterol had been perfect for years. Almost immediately she couldn't walk 100 yards down the road. She persevered but it got no better. She has taken herself off them.

After the shock of hearing the heart attack scare I'm afraid I didn't take in all that she was saying. But one thing I do remember was that she said the bad levels were really bad (whatever that means) my levels at the moment are 8.6. I have a good diet, very active, hardly drink. Not overwieght (5ft. 81/2 stone) although that could come down a bit, I'll admit.

Coolgran, I came straight off the statins and my arm pain went away in days, but the muscle loss took over six months to repair.My lower back muscles were the worst affected by it, going into regular spasms which was agony.I would say it took well over a year to slowly get better from that, but all is well now though.

This won't happen to everyone but it is something to be aware of.

I am on Simvastatin and it has reduced my cholesterol from 7.9 to 4.3 in 6 weeks, with no apparent side effects. Same for my DH.

It clearly is more suitable for some than others.

Very true NanKate, although it does happen to quite a lot of people. I was on it for two years before developing the problems.

As I've mentioned before I've been on Simvastatin for around 10 years now with no side effects except lowered cholesterol.

Here's a thought........high cholesterol can (allegedly) be genetic and there's nothing you can do about it except eat sensibly.

I am finding this very interesting; now that I have had my various operations, and am off all the medication and feeling something like normal, I had already decided to address the statins situation.

I was put on Simvastatin (40mg) about ten years ago, when my cholesterol reading was about 5. It has been impossible to say whether some of my aches and pains were down to statins, because the pain from the arthritic joints was so bad. However, I have achy legs and heel, and I'd like to take it further. So thanks!

Discussing cholesterol and statins on 'Trust me I'm a Doctor' now on BBC 2.

almonds and porridge- perhaps the reason why mine is so low- looking forward to the conclusion on this.