Statins not working

[Mamie]

Just watching the BBC news and a new report is saying that statins are only working to lower cholesterol in less than half of the patients taking them. Apparently it’s their fault for not taking them properly. Could it be our bodies are fighting back?
On another level i’m appalled that, once again, misinformation regarding “dangerous cholesterol and statins saving thousands of lives” is stated as absolute fact by the media.

[Ffion]

I'm not sure the BBC would recognise a fact if it bit them on the bum any more.

[Mat]

I'm not sure the BBC would recognise a fact if it bit them on the bum any more.

Amen!

[Sarah(sjc)]

Or even somewhere more sensitive... Strikes me that the BBC spends an awful lot of time regurgitating other peoples poor journalism, and cutting corners on its previous very high standards!

[Mamie]

I agree folks. X

[grumbleweed]

I listened to that report this morning and was mystified by the reasons given for them not working...like...some patients may not be taking them. Oh...and since when is that part of good research? Shouldn't all patients actually be taking them for there to be a clear picture of how effective they are?

...or aren't?

[TedHutchinson]

You can read the actual study here.
Sub-optimal cholesterol response to initiation of statins and future risk of cardiovascular disease

During 1 077 299 person-years of follow-up, there were 22 798 CVD events (12142 in sub-optimal responders and 10656 inoptimal responders).
The rate of CVD was 22.6 and 19.7 per 1000 person-years for sub-optimal and optimal responders, respectively.
Patients with a sub-optimal response, compared to those with an optimal response, were significantly more likely to have an incident CVD event (crude HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.20; p<0.001).
After adjusting for age and baseline untreated LDL-C value, the risk of CVD remained significantly greater in sub-optimal responders compared with optimal responders (adjusted HR 1.22, 95%CI 1.19 to 1.25; p<0.001).
A competing risk approach resulted in lower but similar sub-HRs for incidence of CVD for both unadjusted (1.13, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.16; p<0.001) and adjusted (1.19, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.23; p<0.001) cumulative incidence function, as shown in figure 2.

Is Nutrition Research Seriously Flawed? Can Hazelnuts Really Add Years to Your Life?

John P.A. Ioannidis makes similar points in this paper.
Flawed methods and inappropriate conclusions for health policy on overweight and obesity: the Global BMI Mortality Collaboration meta-analysis

[Sarah(sjc)]

The BBC article quotes the researchers as saying that those on lower potency doses had sub optimal responses.... so the answer is clearly to prescribe higher amounts?

[Ffion]

Oh my, that'll be where we're going next then.

[Gilli]

You can read the actual study here.
Sub-optimal cholesterol response to initiation of statins and future risk of cardiovascular disease


Is Nutrition Research Seriously Flawed? Can Hazelnuts Really Add Years to Your Life?

John P.A. Ioannidis makes similar points in this paper.
Flawed methods and inappropriate conclusions for health policy on overweight and obesity: the Global BMI Mortality Collaboration meta-analysis

Thanks Ted. I will read those tonight with interest.

I saw the same article in the Times this morning and posted links to youtube clips of Dr Malcolm Kendrick in the comments section. I hope at least some people will have a look and consider whether statins help them.