Risk Found in People Taking Statin Drugs

Valve Replacement Forums

Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
P

Phyllis

This one's for Tobaggo!


Very Low LDL May Mean More Cancer Risk
Risk Found in People Taking Statin Drugs; More Study Needed, Researchers Say
By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Medical NewsReviewed by Louise Chang, MDJuly 23, 2007 -- New research suggests a link between very low cholesterol levels and an increased risk of cancer, but the findings are far from conclusive, researchers say.

The analysis of studies examining outcomes in patients taking cholesterol-lowering drugs called statins to lower their low density lipoprotein (LDL) "bad" cholesterol found an elevated risk of cancer among those who achieved the very lowest LDL cholesterol levels while taking the drugs.

The findings do not directly implicate statins in increasing cancer risk, but they do raise important questions, which need to be answered in future clinical trials, researcher Richard H. Karas, MD, of Boston?s Tufts-New England Medical Center, tells WebMD.

Statins like Lipitor, Pravachol, Crestor, and Zocor lower LDL levels by blocking a key enzyme in the liver responsible for making cholesterol.

?Our findings should not be seen as a reason to change clinical practice,? Karas says. ?No one who needs these drugs should stop taking them based on these findings.?

Is Lower Always Better?
Millions of American take statins to lower their risk of heart attack and stroke, and in recent years an increasing number have been placed on high doses of the drugs to achieve lower LDL levels.

The ?lower is better? strategy for controlling LDL has been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk, especially in very high-risk heart patients. But questions remain about the long-term safety of high-dose statin use.

Karas and colleagues did not have cancer in mind when they set out to examine the safety of the strategy. They were more focused on two more widely suspected side effects of statins -- muscle damage and elevated liver enzymes.

They found no link between very low LDL levels and either of these side effects, but a clear association was seen between statin use in high doses and liver abnormalities.

?There was an important and significant relationship between the dose of statins given and the risk of liver toxicity,? Karas says. ?I think this paper establishes that point quite strongly.?

The analysis failed to show a similar link between statin dosage and muscle damage. It has long been suggested that in high doses statins raise the risk of a rare but potentially life-threatening muscle disorder known as rhabdomyolysis.

No evidence of a link was found by Karas and colleagues, but the researcher says there were too few cases of the disorder to prove or disprove the association.

Karas favors using moderate doses of statins in combination with other cholesterol-lowering drugs instead of high doses of statins to lower the risk to the liver.

"To be clear, the benefits of statins far outweigh the risks,? he says.

Statins, Cancer, and Controversy
It is not clear from the analysis if the increased cancer risk seen in patients with very low LDL had anything to do with statin use.

The study is published in the July 31 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (ACC).

In an interview with WebMD, ACC President James Dove, MD, FACC, expressed concern that it would be misinterpreted by the press and public.

?It would be wrong to conclude that the drugs are too risky because of this unproven cancer risk,? he says. ?These results raise important questions, but they do not demonstrate a causal relationship between statins and cancer.?

Editors of the ACC journal expressed a similar apprehension in an editorial accompanying the research analysis.

?Given the growing public angst regarding the safety of prescription medications, all were concerned that the paper contained great potential both for harm and good,? editors Anthony DeMaria, MD, and Ori Ben-Yehuda, MD, write.

The study prompted ?spirited discussions? among editorial board members, with some arguing that the paper should not be published, the editors write.

?In the final analysis, the consensus was that these findings could not be ignored, that they did indeed warrant further investigation, and that they should be aired in public,? they conclude.

Lipitor manufacturer Pfizer issued a statement late Monday in response to the study, noting that ?the existing pre-clinical and clinical evidence does not support a causal association between the use of statins and the development of cancer.?

A Pfizer spokeswoman pointed to a large analysis of 26 studies including nearly 90,000 patients published last year, which showed no evidence of an increased risk of cancer with statin use.

?A limitation of the current analysis is that researchers took data from clinical trials available before November of 2005,? the statement reads. ?We agree with the authors that further analysis in this area is appropriate, but should include all currently available trials.?
 
I took statin drugs a few years back but had such bad leg cramps that I had to stop. I would rather take my chances with slightly high cholesterol than with meds that have such side effects. Always makes me wonder what else is going on in the body with these meds.

Very interesting article.
 
Oh Great! I just started on a statin, and I am also still taking meds for my breast cancer in 2004. This is wonderful news :mad: I also don't like the liver problems associated with it and have to say that I am very achey in the morning.

I'm glad you posted it Phyllis. I will definitely have "speaks" with my doctor.
 
I saw the report on our local news yesterday, very interesting.
As Ann knows we have discussed this before, and my wife also suffered severe muscle pain and weakness from and and all statins. Needless to say all statins went into the trash. I agree with Ann that in time we may find out a lot more damage is being caused by these drugs.
For myself I am more than a little suspicious and confused.
When I was in my early forties a routine blood test came back pretty bad. Total cholesterol about 250, tryglicerides almost 400, and all numbers way out of wack. So did I do anything about? No.
Then I was in my late fifties needing AVR. A blood test came back with my total cholesterol at 170, and all numbers were perfect. The catherization showed all arteries totally clear.
Since I did nothing how did this happen? Why weren't my arteries full of plaque ? How did my numbers drop ?
I have never changed my diet or taken any medications for cholesterol.
And it remains that way to this day.
I really found the web-site Ann posted VERY interesting.
Rich
 
Every drug ever manufactured has side effects. A patient and his/her doctor must weigh the benefits associated with the drug (efficacy of treatment) versus the costs of taking the drug (side effects). Statins are the most successful heart pharmaceutical ever developed. Millions of people take them regularly without any problems. Any drug taken by such a large number of people is bound to have many reported side effects. Undoubtedly, and as some of you can attest, this side effects sometimes outweigh the benefits of taking a statin. However, this is a very rare occurrence.

Why are statins prescribed so often? Indeed, it can be convincingly argued that statins have become over-prescribed. But why? The answer is that they save hundreds of thousands of lives each year. Heart attacks kill people all the time. Statins have been so wildly successful in preventing death due to heart attack that they have become over-prescribed. Doctors will often prescribe statins because the benefit to the patient's health can be substantial and the costs in side effects is usually very minimal.

What problems, if any, will statins cause in the long-term? This is, of course, unknown. Some in this thread have speculated that we many see long-term side-effects that are quite negative. I find this very unlikely. No drug can be tested for 20 years to see what the long-term side effects will be. Very, very few drugs exhibit long term side-effects that were completely unknown during FDA trials. The chances of statins exhibiting some negative long-term effect are extraordinarily remote based on their current high usage. I would feel just as, if not more comfortable, using statins on a long-term basis as I would using coumadin on a long-term basis.

Let us not forget that the authors of this study said the following multiple times: "To be clear, the benefits of statins far outweigh the risks."

The benefits don't just outweigh the risks, they far outweigh them. We need to keep in mind that statins are, most importantly, life saving drugs. When used in a moderate dosage in combination with other drugs that can lower triglycerides and increase HDL ("good cholesterol"), statins are prolong the lives of millions across the world.

Brad
 
Thanks, Brad. There are far more side effects from statins than most of us know about. I finally dumped mine after being on Lipitor for years in favor of being able to walk and have been left with permanent muscle damage. I am now on Zetia and so far all is ok. We have another member whose wife has leftover effects from Lipitor. From time to time we have the statin discussion and there are many pro and many con. It's a very valid discussion and I am glad it comes up from time to time.

Yes, from all reports statins help most everybody, but there are definitely lots of us who just cannot tolerate them. My cardio agrees
 
Nova

Nova

I was watching Nova the other day and they were saying that having the good cholesteral high actually helped lower the bad cholesteral.....it was pretty interesting. I think the Dr.'s don't know much about the good cholesteral.
 
What I do not understand is why all the statin drug ads have the disclaimer that "(insert drug name here) has not been proven to prevent heart attacks". If that is the case, why are they being prescribed so often?
 
geebee said:
What I do not understand is why all the statin drug ads have the disclaimer that "(insert drug name here) has not been proven to prevent heart attacks". If that is the case, why are they being prescribed so often?

statins are for helping to prevent clogging of arteries. It's the clogging that causes the heart attacks. Four of mine were clogged and so along came a heart attack. They are CYA, I think.

They are a huge money maker and that's one reason for the big push for all of us to use them.
 
hensylee said:
statins are for helping to prevent clogging of arteries
There's more info on statins and what they do and don't do on this site http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

At first glance it seems a bit cranky, but dig a bit and it all seems very credible! The comparisons to thalidomide, in particular, look pretty scary - the ambulance-chasing lawyers are likely to have a field day drumming up disgruntled punters who have been (or think they've been) affected in one way or another.
 
My combinded numbers fluctuate between 180-218. MD wanted me to start on a Statin...and I refused do to published side effects.

Have always ate healthy. My diet consistis of more fruit and veggies than anything. My weight increased 5 years ago when starting a beta blocker. Which is a common side effect. Not happy about it. But I feel great...with a regular sinus rythum, etc.

My higher levels are genetic. Parents, etc. My parents were not aware of high levels until they were 55-60ish. Nobody had any il effects from most likley 30+ years with high levels. Way I look at it...if they went 30 years without meds. I can do the same. Especailly since I will have another valve surgery sometime in my late 50's. They can inspect my arteries at that time. :D
 
I was at a medical meeting a few months ago sitting at a table with six young doctors( young 40's and 50's) and I was the only one not taking statins!
 
My dad had high cholesterol for as long as I could remember and, while he had a genetic heart issue, namely hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, his arteries were, "clean as a whistle," a direct quote from his cardio.

That said, mine measured fairly high a few months ago and even though my "good" cholesterol is very high also I got the, "You must take Lipitor," lecture from my well-meaning family doctor, again, who also happens to take Lipitor. In return, he got my "deer in the headlights" look, again. Interestingly, perhaps, my cardio doesn't seem worried about my cholesterol levels at all. And, of course, bicuspid patients tend to have clear arteries so I'm not really worried either.

I did feel like I could/should make some dietary changes, however, so I made some changes and I feel healthier and accidently lost 10 pounds too! I still need to have my cholesterol retested and then I'd like to see how much difference a few dietary changes made in those readings.
 
I deplore Statins....

I deplore Statins....

I think they're a pure marketing ploy by the drug companies and doctors.. You should see the free lunches the drug reps bring to my doctor relatives..:eek:

My mama's doctor wanted to put her on Lipitor last year and I threw a hissy fit. My mama is 91 years old, soon to be 92 and I told him that if her cholesterol hadn't killed her by now that it's most likely NOT the reason she'll go to heaven. Shoot, she's even got a new boyfriend - Mr. Bob, age 92 - and feeling great..! The very brief time she was on Lipitor she complained of joint aches, blah, blah, blah...and now she feels well enough to play 'kissyface' with Mr. Bob...!:D
 
I'll tell you right now that statins are not a pure marketing ploy. Certainly they are aggressively marketed as our many other drugs. Just because your mother and others have side effects from them does not mean they are a "marketing ploys." They save the life of hundreds of thousands of people every year. These anecdotes about statins are all well and good, but look at the statistics.

This is a drug that has given extra years to people across the globe, please do not call it a pure marketing ploy...I think that is very irresponsible behavior.

As for the side effects:

"While some patients on statin therapy report myalgias, muscle cramps, or far less-frequent gastrointestinal or other symptoms, similar symptoms are also reported with placebo use in all the large statin safety/efficacy trials and usually resolve, either on their own or on temporarily lowering/stopping the dose. Liver enzyme derangements may also occur, typically in about 0.5%, are also seen at similar rates with placebo use and repeated enzyme testing, and generally return to normal either without discontinuance over time or after briefly discontinuing the drug. Multiple other side-effects occur rarely; typically also at similar rates with only placebo in the large statin safety/efficacy trials".
 
Bradley,

While I agree with your concerns about across the board comments, I am still bothered by the drug companies statement below. It implies that the side effects we discussed are all in our heads (similar symptoms are also reported with placebo). I can assure you the muscle cramps I had were extremely real, started with statin use and subsided once the meds were stopped. Misleading statements like the one above is what makes people hesitant or even angry with the drug companies.
 
Back
Top