Pages

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Statins. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Statins. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, 31 March 2014

Why take statins? - British Heart Foundation

reposted from: https://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-health/treatment/statins.aspx

Statins

Statin drugs - British Heart Foundation

Statins are the most commonly prescribed medicines in the UK. They work to lower the level of cholesterol in your blood. There are different types of statins, but they all work in much the same way.

Why do I need to lower my cholesterol?

Cholesterol is essential for your body to work well, but too much ‘bad cholesterol’ (called low-density lipoprotein or LDL) is unhealthy. Statins reduce the amount of ‘bad cholesterol’ your body makes.
High levels of ‘bad cholesterol’ in your blood can lead to fatty deposits building up in your arteries. This can increase your risk of developing cardiovascular disease, which includes conditions such ascoronary heart disease  (leading to angina and heart attack) and stroke.
Your body will always make cholesterol so if you stop taking a statin, it’s likely your cholesterol levels will rise. If you are prescribed a statin, you need to take it every day. Statins are most beneficial when you take them on a long-term basis.

Why do I need to take statins? 

If you’ve had a heart attack or stroke, you may be advised to take statins in order to reduce your risk of another event. If you have peripheral arterial disease statins can help to slow the progression. If you are diabetic, you are at a much higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease, and taking statins will help to reduce this risk.
Even if you’re in good health, you may be prescribed statins if you’re at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, for example, if you have a strong family history of cardiovascular disease. Statins can help lower your risk.

When should I take my statin?

It’s important to take your medication regularly as prescribed. Most statins are taken at night, as this is when most of your cholesterol is produced. Check with your doctor or pharmacist when you should be taking your statin.
Most statins come as tablets. The most common one is simvastatin.
Look up your medication on the Medicine Guides website.

Are there any foods, drinks or other medications I should avoid? 

Check with your doctor or pharmacist before you take any other medications. Taking certain medicines together may affect how well they work.
If you’re taking simvastatin or atorvastatin, avoid grapefruit and grapefruit juice as they can increase your risk of side effects.
If you take another type of statin, limit your intake of grapefruit juice to very small quantities or you may want to avoid it all together.

Do statins have side effects?

Like all medication, statins have potential side effects. The most common are muscular aches and pains, but many people experience none at all. Statins are among the safest and the most studied medications available today.
If you do experience side effects, or if your side effects change or become worse, tell your GP.
Statins target the liver cells where cholesterol is made. Before you start taking statins, you will have a blood test to check how well your liver works. Your doctor may request that you have a follow-up blood test a few months later. If your liver is affected, your doctor may want to reduce your dose or change your statin to another kind of medication that lowers your cholesterol.
Find out about other possible side effects from our Statins information sheet.

Can I buy statins over the counter?

Low-dose statins are available at some pharmacies without a prescription, but they are not a substitute for prescription statins or for making lifestyle changes to reduce your cholesterol level. If you are at high risk of heart disease, your doctor may prescribe a statin for you.

What are the differences between statins?

Lots of people don’t need a strong statin to reduce their cholesterol level. Your GP or cardiologist will find the right statin for you, depending on your medical history and the cholesterol level they think you should aim for.
If you’re sensitive to one statin, you might not be sensitive to another. You should have a blood test after any change of statin to see how effectively the new medicine is lowering your cholesterol.

Can I take a statin if I'm pregnant?

If you’re pregnant, breastfeeding or planning a pregnancy, you should not take statins. If you’re already taking statins but would like to become pregnant, speak to your GP first.

How else can I lower my cholesterol?

You can also lower your cholesterol by:

Tuesday, 18 March 2014

Statins side effects are minimal, study argues

reposted from: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/Statins-side-effects-are-minimal-study-argues.aspx
crabsallover highlightskey pointscomments / links.

Thursday March 13 2014
Statins are used to lower blood cholesterol levels
“Cholesterol-lowering statins have almost no side effects,” The Guardian reports. A new UK study argues that the majority of reported side effects are actually due to the nocebo effect  symptoms that are “all in the mind”. 
The researchers looked at the combined results of 29 studies and found there was no difference in the incidence of common side effects in the treated group compared to those in the placebo group. However, there was a slightly higher occurrence of diabetes.
Statins slightly reduced the risk of death from any cause, as well as the risk of heart attack and stroke in people with or without vascular disease. 
However,  the research did not include analysis for some reported side effects of statins, such as memory problems, blurred vision, ringing in the ears or skin problems.
The frequently reported side effect of muscle weakness was only considered if there was also a 10-fold rise in a muscle enzyme associated with muscle injury. Muscle aches, in particular, were no more common in the statin group than the placebo group.
This research has provided a novel approach to assessing the risks and benefits of using statins. Arguably, it provides the most comprehensive research yet on the number of people thought to have genuine side effects, and the risks and benefits of taking statins in both low- and high-risk groups for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attacks.
However, some headlines  such as “Statins are safe”  have overstated the case. There is no such thing as an entirely "safe" drug for everyone who takes it. If a drug doesn’t have side effects, it doesn’t work.
If you have any concerns about taking statins, you should discuss this with your GP or health advisor.

The nocebo effect

Most people have heard of the placebo effect – where people see an improvement in symptoms, despite having been given a dummy treatment; this is thought to be down to the power of the own mind.

Well, the nocebo effect is its evil twin. People can develop what they believe are side effects, even though they have been given a dummy treatment.

Ben Goldacre, one of the authors of the study in question, says that if you want to see the nocebo effect in action, when sitting on a sofa with friends suddenly ask: “does this things have fleas in it?”.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from Imperial College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. They say they did not receive any grants from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. The authors are supported by the British Heart Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research and the Wellcome Trust.
The study was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.
The media reported that this study shows that statins have no side effects in comparison to placebo.
This is misleading, as the research was aiming to ask a different question: “What proportion of symptomatic side effects in patients taking statins are genuinely caused by the drug?”
And the researchers were more cautious in their conclusion.
It has not comprehensively looked at all side effects, and it gives no indication of the severity or frequency of side effects experienced.
The media also did not report how small the benefits of statins were found to be in this study. This is an important consideration for people who want to make an informed choice when weighing up the risks and benefits of statin treatment.

What kind of research was this?

This was a meta-analysis of double-blind randomised controlled trials. This means the researchers added together and analysed the results of all studies that met their inclusion criteria. Double-blind randomised controlled trials are the gold standard for studies of whether a drug works or not, as they compare a drug directly with a placebo (dummy), and neither the participant nor the clinician knows which one they are taking. This removes any bias that could affect the results.
Studies of safety are often based on long-term observational studies, often without a placebo. The approach of reviewing randomised trials for safety data, as used by these researchers, would be particularly good at checking on differences between a drug and placebo.

What did the research involve?

The researchers found studies comparing statins to placebo and pooled the results to see if statins increase the risk of side effects, compared to rates in the placebo arm.
Two large databases were searched for relevant studies looking at statins being compared to placebo for cardiovascular disease prevention. Studies were excluded if they compared statins with standard therapy or no treatment. They also excluded studies that mainly included people on renal dialysis, those with organ transplants or if other non-statin medication was also started. This was because people in these categories did not represent the majority of people treated with statins.
They separately analysed studies of primary cardiovascular disease prevention (i.e. in people who had not had a heart attack or stroke) and secondary cardiovascular disease prevention (reducing the risk of a further heart attack or stroke in people who have already had one or the other).
They recorded any serious events for each trial and pooled the results, including:
  • mortality of any cause
  • fatal heart attack
  • non-fatal heart attack
  • fatal stroke
  • non-fatal stroke
  • any life-threatening condition
  • any hospitalisation
They also recorded other side effects, but only if they were reported in at least two trials and the sample size was at least 500 people:
  • increased liver enzymes
  • newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus
  • myopathy symptoms (muscular weakness)
  • muscle aches
  • increased creatine kinase (a muscle enzyme that raises during muscle injury) more than 10 times the upper limit of normal
  • back pain
  • newly diagnosed cancer
  • kidney problems
  • insomnia
  • gastrointestinal disturbance, nausea
  • dyspepsia (indigestion), diarrhoea or constipation
  • fatigue
  • headache
  • suicide
They performed internationally recognised statistical analysis to pool the results together. They then calculated the increased risk of experiencing each side effect for participants taking the statins and for participants taking placebo. They subtracted the placebo risk from the statin risk to find the absolute increase in risk for being on statins. By doing this, they worked out the proportion of symptoms that would not have been attributable to taking medication.
The researchers reported risks as “absolute risks” and calculated the reduction in risk by subtracting the risk in one arm from that in the other. This makes a direct comparison of the possible risks and benefits.

What were the basic results?

They found 14 randomised controlled trials, which included 46,262 people without previous heart disease or stroke (primary prevention). They also found 15 randomised controlled trials, including 37,618 people who already had heart disease or stroke (secondary prevention). On average, the trials lasted between 6 months and 5.4 years, and those included were mostly men.
In the studies, on people who had not already suffered from a heart attack or stroke, the rate of new-onset diabetes for people on statins was 2.7% and on placebo was 2.2%.
The difference between rates on treatment and on placebo is 0.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1 to 1%), meaning there was a small, statistically significant increase in the rate of developing diabetes with a statin.
This means that in 100 people taking statins, 20 cases of newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus could be due to taking this medicine. In people who had already suffered from a heart attack or stroke, there was only one study that reported new onset diabetes, and no significant effect was seen.
In the studies on people who had not already suffered from a heart attack or stroke, the risk of death from any cause on statins was 0.5% (CI -0.9 to -0.2%) less than the risk on placebo. The risk of a heart attack was 1% (CI -1.4 to -0.7%) less and the risk of stroke 0.3% (CI -0.5 to -0.1%) less.
In the studies on people who had already suffered from a heart attack or stroke, the reduction in absolute risk of death from any cause was even more: 1.4% (CI -2.1 to -0.7%) less compared to placebo. Statins also significantly reduced the risk of a heart attack by 2.3% (CI -2.8 to -1.7%) and the risk of stroke was 0.7% (-1.2 to -0.3%) less.
The proportion of people developing symptoms or other blood test abnormalities was as follows:
  • In both study groups, liver enzymes rose in 0.4% of people on statins. No symptoms were reported, and it is unclear if this was harmful.
    There was no significant difference between
  • taking statins or placebo for any of the other adverse events or side effects listed above.
  • With regards to muscle weakness, this was only recorded if the muscle enzyme (creatinine kinase) level was greater than 10 times the upper limit of normal, so was found in just 16/19,286 people on statins and 10/17,888 on placebo in the primary prevention group. A separate category for muscle aches were experienced in 1744/22,058 (7.9%) in people on statins and 1646/21,624 (7.6%) on placebo.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

At the doses tested in these 83,880 patients, only a small minority of symptoms reported on statins are genuinely due to the statins; almost all reported symptoms occurred just as frequently when patients were administered placebo. New-onset diabetes mellitus was the only potentially or actually symptomatic side effect whose rate was significantly higher on statins than placebo; nevertheless, only one in five of these new cases were actually caused by statins.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis pooled results from 29 studies and has shown a very small increased risk of newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus. This is the same as the decreased risk of any cause of death in people taking statins, compared to placebo, to prevent a heart attack or stroke.
The researchers point out some limitations to the meta-analysis:
  • Each study did not report on all of the side effects, meaning that for each category of side effect, the number of participants differed. The side effect categories were only included if at least 500 people had reported suffering from it. This means there may be numerous other side effects that were not covered by this research.
  • New onset diabetes was only documented in 3 of the 29 trials, though the numbers were still reasonably large.
  • Many trials do not state clearly how and how often adverse events were assessed. This is particularly important, as it is not clear from this type of analysis how often the side effects were experienced or the severity.
Side effects not covered by this review include memory problems, blurred vision, ringing in the ears and skin problems.
Anecdotally, muscle aches or weakness is one of the main reasons people stop taking statins. In this review, the category for muscle weakness was only looked at if the person also had a 10-fold increase in creatinine kinase level (indicating muscle damage). Muscle aches were separately recorded, as this is more common and not always experienced alongside muscle weakness. No firm conclusions can therefore be drawn from this meta-analysis regarding whether statins have an effect on the risk of muscle weakness, if there was less than a 10-fold increase in creatinine levels.
This research was limited to studying the side effects reported in the included studies. Although it was not a comprehensive study of all side effects, it has provided a novel approach to assessing the balance of risks and benefits.
It provides extremely useful data on the proportion of people expected to have genuine side effects and the balance of risks and benefits when taking statins in both low- and high-risk groups.
There are other ways you can lower your cholesterol levels, such as eating a healthy diet low in saturated fat and taking regular exercise.

Thursday, 24 July 2014

'More adults should be taking statins,' says NICE

reposted from: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/07July/Pages/More-adults-should-be-taking-statins-says-NICE.aspx
crabsallover highlightskey pointscomments / links.

Reading the peer-reviewed literature on statins and other reports, I've suspected, for more than a year, that this advice (20mg/day Atorvastatin if QRISK2 10-year risk of CVD is 10% or more) would  be recommended by NICE.

"Doctors have been told to offer cholesterol-lowering statins to millions more people," BBC News reports.
New guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend lowering the bar for statin use in adults at risk of heart disease. 
NICE suggests up to 8,000 lives could be saved every three years if everyone with a 10% risk of developing cardiovascular disease within the next 10 years is offered one of the widely used cholesterol-lowering medications.
Cardiovascular diseases are diseases affecting the heart and blood vessels, such as heart disease and stroke.
NICE says the evidence clearly shows statins are safe and effective and would be a good use of healthcare resources if given to these people.
The announcement has been met with a variable response, with the Daily Mail saying up to half of all adults could now be eligible for the drugs, and that, "GPs warn of chaos" at being "told to trawl medical records to find at-risk patients".
On the other side of the argument, Professor Baker, director of the Centre for Clinical Practice at NICE, says the new recommendations would not create an additional workload for GPs.
On the NICE website, he said: "Most patients will already be under surveillance by their GPs, so this won't add any additional workload. But you can do the QRISK2 risk assessment yourself. It can be done online or via an app, so it doesn't need to be done by the GP."
You can assess your own risk online using a risk assessment tool based on factors such as smoking history, body mass index (BMI) and family history of heart disease.
The NICE guidelines have now been published, which means they will come into effect in the NHS in England. However, NICE still recommends preventable lifestyle measures, such as losing weight or stopping smoking, are addressed first before starting statin treatment.
Ultimately, the decision to take a statin – even if it is recommended – will always remain a choice that sits with the patient.

Statins and reporting bias

Visit any medical news forum or comment board, such as the Mail Online's health section, and search for statins, and you will see stories of statins causing terrible side effects – for example, how statins left a person "crippled with pain and brain fog".

While the issue of side effects should never be ignored, the bad press statins get online could be an example of reporting bias in action – where there is selective reporting (or suppression) of information.

In other words, people who tolerated statins poorly are more likely to report that fact than people who have been taking them for years with no adverse effects. Similarly, most UK newspapers are unlikely to run an "I took statins, I had no side effects, and they probably prevented a heart attack" story. Good news rarely shifts newspapers or gets clicks on websites.

What are statins?

Statins are usually the first medication of choice to reduce the levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL, or "bad")cholesterol in the blood.
Cholesterol and other fatty substances can build up and clog the arteries in the heart and elsewhere in the body, leading to cardiovascular diseases. Reducing cholesterol levels helps reduce the risk of cardiovascular events such as heart attack or stroke.
Examples of statin drugs aresimvastatin and atorvastatin, which come as tablets. The recommended treatment course is to usually take a tablet once a day for life.

What is NICE recommending?

NICE has published an update to its previous clinical guideline on the cardiovascular risk assessment and management of lipids (fats in the blood, which includes cholesterol and triglycerides) in people who either already have cardiovascular disease (such as those who've had a heart attack or stroke), or people who are at risk of developing cardiovascular disease.
The main new recommendations are that:
  • A systematic strategy should be used in general practice to identify people who are likely to be at high risk for developing cardiovascular disease (CVD).
  • People should be prioritised for a full risk assessment if their estimated 10-year risk of CVD is 10% or more (using the QRISK2 assessment tool).
  • Before starting lipid-lowering medications for the prevention of CVD, at least one blood sample should be taken to measure total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL, or "good") cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and triglyceride concentrations.
  • In people who have a 10% or greater risk of developing CVD within the next 10 years, the recommended statin to start treatment with is atorvastatin, given at a dose of 20mg daily.
  • In people who already have established CVD (people who have heart disease or have had a stroke), the recommended starting dose of atorvastatin is 80mg daily (unless there are side effects or other contraindications).
For people at risk of developing CVD within the next 10 years, the recommendations to start 20mg atorvastatin applies to adults of all ages, including people over the age of 85 years (in very elderly people, statins may reduce the risk of a non-fatal heart attack). This advice stands unless there are other health-related factors that make statin treatment inappropriate.
NICE does make several important provisions around decisions to start treatment for the prevention of CVD in people considered to be at risk.
These are outlined below.

Patient-doctor discussion

The decision whether to start a statin should be made after an informed discussion between the doctor and patient about the risks and benefits of treatment, taking into account factors such as:
  • possible benefits from lifestyle modifications (measures that could be tried first before starting a statin, such as exercising more, eating a healthier diet and stopping smoking)
  • patient preference
  • other medical illnesses
  • the problems of adding another tablet if the person is already taking a lot of daily medications
  • general frailty and life expectancy

Lifestyle changes

Before starting statin treatment, assessment should be made into other health and lifestyle factors that may need management, including:
  • smoking and alcohol consumption
  • blood pressure
  • BMI
  • diabetes
  • kidney or liver disease
The benefits of optimising all other modifiable lifestyle risk factors (for example, overweight/obesity or smoking) should be discussed, and people offered support for this if needed, such as exercise referral programmes.
Statin treatment may then be considered if lifestyle modifications don't work.

What is the rationale for lowering the threshold for the drugs?

Currently, one-third of deaths in the UK are caused by cardiovascular disease, accounting for around 180,000 deaths each year.
Cardiovascular disease is well known to have a significant burden of disability. It is believed £8 billion of healthcare resources are tied up in the disease.
Professor Mark Baker, director of the Centre for Clinical Practice at NICE, says: "Doctors have been giving statins to 'well people' since NICE first produced guidance on this in 2006. We are now recommending the threshold is reduced further.
"The overwhelming body of evidence supports their use, even in people at low risk of CVD. The effectiveness of these medicines is now well proven and their cost has fallen. The weight of evidence clearly shows statins are safe and cost effective for use in people with a 10% risk of CVD over 10 years."
Dr Anthony Wierzbicki, from Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, London, and chair of the Guideline Development Group, also commented on the new guidance: "We've been able to simplify the guideline so it's now much easier for patients to be assessed and for GPs and nurses to make sense of the results. There is greater clarity, a simpler framework, and a systematic way of identifying people who could benefit from treatment.
"We've got the best evidence base, huge numbers, and the biggest set of clinical trials ever done. Other areas of medicine would give their teeth for this evidence, it's that good. Statins work, they are very cheap, and are becoming considerably cheaper as they come off-patent, which, in a cost-limited health service, is a big consideration.
"That enables us to actually say that we should treat people with heart disease a lot more intensively because we know that will prevent further events. In people with diabetes or kidney disease, giving a statin will reduce heart attacks and strokes. For people at risk of heart disease, if lifestyle measures fail, we have a second option of giving them a statin if they want and require it."

Are there any risks or side effects with statins?

Statins are fairly safe drugs, though there are a range of possible side effects and groups of people who should use them with caution. This includes people with an underactive thyroid, kidney disease and liver disease. Women should also not take statins while pregnant or breastfeeding.
Possible side effects include headaches and dizziness, sleep disturbances, fatigue, tummy disturbances, altered sensation, and sensitivity reactions such as rash or itching.
Very rarely, statins have been associated with the risk of having a toxic effect on the muscles, causing muscle pain and weakness, and even a serious condition called rhabdomyolysis, where the muscle fibres start to break down.
However, the risks and benefits would be discussed and taken into account for any individual before a statin is prescribed, including their personal and family medical history.

How has the announcement been received by the media?

As the BBC News headline indicates, NICE's decision has been met with controversy. 
Professor Mark Baker, the director of the Centre for Clinical Practice at NICE is quoted as saying: "Prevention is better than cure. One of the mainstays of modern medicine is to use treatments to prevent bad things happening in the future. It's why we use vaccines and immunisation to prevent infectious disease, it's why we use drugs to lower blood pressure to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and kidney disease, and it's why we're using statins now."
Meanwhile, in opposing camps there is debate about "medicalising" a nation and encouraging people to just pop a pill rather than following a healthy lifestyle.
The British Medical Association's General Practitioner Committee is quoted as saying: "There is insufficient evidence of significant overall benefit to low-risk individuals to allow GPs to have confidence in the recommendation. The measure would distort health spending priorities and disadvantage other patients."
However, as quoted in the Daily Mail, Professor Baker responded: "It is ludicrous to suggest that we are overmedicalising the population when the whole point of using modern, safe and effective drugs in an economic way is to prevent bad things happening in the future."
Dr Chaand Nagpaul, chair of the British Medical Association's GP committee, feels NICE has not taken into account the additional pressures they'll be placing on GPs. "In making their decision, NICE has failed to take the current pressures on general practice into account, and the further impact this will have on already overstretched GPs and those patients requiring treatment for other illnesses."
Despite the extensive debate and opposition, as BBC News also highlights, the 10% threshold for statin treatment is comparable to that already used in other European countries.
As the president of the Academy of Medical Sciences, Professor Sir John Tooke, points out on the BBC News website: "Whether or not someone takes drugs to diminish their risk is a matter of personal choice, but it must be informed by accurate information on the balance of risk and benefit in their particular case. The weight of evidence suggests statins are effective, affordable and have an acceptable risk-benefit profile."

Conclusion

Despite somewhat hysterical media coverage to the contrary ("millions more to be given statins," according to the Daily Express), nobody will be forced to take statins.
If your GP does recommend statins, you should ask them to explain the benefits and risks for you personally of starting statin treatment. You may want to find out more about statins before making up your mind – the NHS Choices Health A-Z information on statins is a good place to start.
If you do experience troublesome side effects while taking statins, contact your GP or the doctor in charge of your care. It could be the case that adjusting your dosage or switching to a different type of statin could help relieve any side effects.
Analysis by Bazian. Edited by NHS ChoicesFollow Behind the Headlines on TwitterJoin the Healthy Evidence forum.

Monday, 7 January 2013

Ben Goldacre 'Bad Pharma' - Cochrane 2011 report 'Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease'

reposted from:
crabsallover highlightskey pointscomments / links.

Ben Goldacres' 'Bad Pharma' mentions Cochrane as a independent systematic reviewer of trial results.

I blogged about The Lancets review of the Cochrane systematic study 'Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease' in January 2011 but until now I've not looked at the original Cochrane review.

The Cochrane website gives the 2011 Abstract, full Article and previous versions with free pdf downloads.

Abstract


Background

Reducing high blood cholesterol, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in people with and without a past history of coronary heart disease (CHD) is an important goal of pharmacotherapy. Statins are the first-choice agents. Previous reviews of the effects of statins have highlighted their benefits in people with coronary artery disease. The case for primary prevention, however, is less clear.

Objectives

To assess the effects, both harms and benefits, of statins in people with no history of CVD.

Search methods

To avoid duplication of effort, we checked reference lists of previous systematic reviews. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 1, 2007), MEDLINE (2001 to March 2007) and EMBASE (2003 to March 2007). There were no language restrictions.

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials of statins with minimum duration of one year and follow-up of six months, in adults with no restrictions on their total low density lipoprotein (LDL) or high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels, and where 10% or less had a history of CVD, were included.

Data collection and analysis

Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes included all cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal CHD, CVD and stroke events, combined endpoints (fatal and non-fatal CHD, CVD and stroke events), change in blood total cholesterol concentration, revascularisation, adverse events, quality of life and costs. Relative risk (RR) was calculated for dichotomous data, and for continuous data pooled weighted mean differences (with 95% confidence intervals) were calculated.

Main results

Fourteen randomised control trials (16 trial arms; 34,272 participants) were included. Eleven trials recruited patients with specific conditions (raised lipids, diabetes, hypertension, microalbuminuria). All-cause mortality was reduced by statins (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96) as was combined fatal and non-fatal CVD endpoints (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.79). Benefits were also seen in the reduction of revascularisation rates (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.83). Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol were reduced in all trials but there was evidence of heterogeneity of effects. There was no clear evidence of any significant harm caused by statin prescription or of effects on patient quality of life.

Authors' conclusions

Reductions in all-cause mortality, major vascular events and revascularisations were found with no excess of cancers or muscle pain among people without evidence of cardiovascular disease treated with statins.  Other potential adverse events were not reported and some trials included people with cardiovascular disease. Only limited evidence showed that primary prevention with statins may be cost effective and improve patient quality of life. Caution should be taken in prescribing statins for primary prevention among people at low cardiovascular risk.

Plain language summary

Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is ranked as the number one cause of mortality and is a major cause of morbidity world wide. Reducing high blood cholesterol which is a risk factor for CVD events is an important goal of medical treatment. Statins are the first-choice agents. Since the early statin trials were reported, several reviews of the effects of statins have been published highlighting their benefits particularly in people with a past history of CVD. However for people without a past history of CVD (primary prevention), the evidence is less clear. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effects, both in terms of benefits and harms of statins for the primary prevention of CVD. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE until 2007. We found 14 randomised control trials with 16 trial arms (34,272 patients) dating from 1994 to 2006. All were randomised control trials comparing statins with usual care or placebo. Duration of treatment was minimum one year and with follow up of a minimum of six months. All cause mortality. coronary heart disease and stroke events were reduced with the use of statins as was the need for revascularisations. Statin treatment reduced blood cholesterol. Taking statins did not increase the risk of adverse effects such as cancer. and few trials reported on costs or quality of life. This current systematic review highlights the shortcomings in the published trials and we recommend that caution should be taken in prescribing statins for primary prevention among people at low cardiovascular risk.


Full Report

Very detailed. A Key paragraph is:-

On the basis of our systematic review and these recent meta-analyses, it is clear that any decision to use statins for primary prevention should be made cautiously and in the light of an assessment of the patient’s overall cardiovascular risk profile.  Widespread use of statins in people at low risk of cardiovascular events - below a 1% annual all-cause mortality risk or an annual CVD event rate of below 2% observed in the control groups in the trials considered here - is not supported by the existing evidence. Furthermore, the tendency of trial protocols to remove patients suffering with co-morbidities limits their generalisability to typical patient populations in whom decisions to prescribe statins have to made.

Further analysis of this report and the CTT 2012 report is required to be made by crabsallover.

Wednesday, 1 October 2008

Crabsallover News on Statins

Conclusion: Retake Cholesterol and blood pressure tests. The case for taking statins seems very positive.

Between November 2006 and February 2007 I reviewed use of statins (Crabsallover blog).

Main findings were:

  • 15% risk of Coronary Heart Disease over next 10 years (Nov 16 2006).
  • risk of depression from statins is about 1.4 per cent (Nov 30 2006)
  • supplements of coenzyme Q10 can prevent or minimise adverse effects of statins such as induced muscle pain and fatigue (Nov 30 2006)
  • reduce the chance of a heart attack or stroke by a third, yet causes no serious side effects. (Nov 30, 2006)
  • statins have been prescribed only to people with high cholesterol levels. But the study showed that even people with low levels benefited. That means doctors should dish them out to far more people. (Nov 30, 2006)
  • existing guidelines on prescribing statins to be ripped up. "The default has changed, so doctors should now ask if there's a good reason not to give the drug," he says. It may not even be necessary to measure cholesterol levels beforehand. (Nov 30, 2006)
  • the BMA is recommending caution despite the spectacular results. "It's still possible there might be long-term effects that might not yet have come to light," (Nov 30, 2006)
  • researchers didn't see any sign of the muscle wastage that in August led to the withdrawal of Baycol, a statin made by Bayer of Germany. (Nov 30, 2006)
  • a growing number of people who say they have suffered from amnesia and other nervous-system side effects after taking statins ... "No one should be discouraged from taking a statin because of such anecdotal reports. The benefits of statins far outweigh any possible risks." (Nov 30, 2006)
  • seven per cent of statin takers end up having more heart attacks and cardiovascular disease due to their weak response to the drug.... DNA for single polynucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), DNA sequences which are used to track genetic differences between people. In patients with two particular SNPs, both located in the gene for HMG-CoA reductase, statins were 20 per cent less effective at lowering total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein. (Nov 30, 2006)
  • reduction in Alzheimer’s Disease (Dec 29, 2006)
  • in your 40s, feel right as rain, normal blood pressure, normal cholesterol, pretty good diet, occasional exercise. How would you react if your doctor suggested you take a powerful drug every day for the rest of your life? The drug, known as a statin, will lower your cholesterol even further and reduce your risk of a heart attack or stroke. According to one recent estimate, most men and many women over 40 could benefit from the drugs. If you are worried about side effects, your doctor will reassure you that a meta-analysis that pooled data from 14 trials involving more than 90,000 people shows the treatment is very safe.... If you are worried about side effects, your doctor will reassure you that a meta-analysis that pooled data from 14 trials involving more than 90,000 people shows the treatment is very safe. ... "Lowering cholesterol is beneficial in pretty much everyone who has been studied,"..... we don't know enough about the possible adverse effects of taking them over a lifetime. .... "Some doctors, however, are alarmed by the trend towards dishing out statins to millions more people and giving higher dosages to lower cholesterol even further. They say the benefits for those who do not already have heart disease are small, while the potential risks are largely unknown. "What price should you pay for a modest effect?" Sutter asks. "The price shouldn't be very high because the effect is weak at best." A 20 per cent reduction in cardiovascular risk may sound impressive, but it doesn't look quite as good when you realise what it means for each individual: if your risk of having a heart attack over the next five years is 5 per cent, say, then taking statins will reduce it only to 4 per cent.".... "Sutter and others say that statin researchers have failed to report adverse effects in enough detail to allow doctors and patients to weigh the potential costs against the benefits. "There's no good reporting of adverse effects at high doses and very modest reporting even at moderate doses,"... "Alleged side effects include memory loss, extreme irritability, aggression, suicidal impulses and impotence. Evidence for these remains sketchy, however, coming from small trials and case studies. Statins do cause liver damage in around 1 per cent of patients, but this should be picked up by routine liver function tests and can be reversed by coming off the drugs. It is also clear that statins can damage muscles. As many as a fifth of people taking the drugs in trials say they experience some muscle weakness or pain, and exercise seems to make things worse. These symptoms are commonplace anyway in middle-aged and elderly people, however, and a similar number of patients taking a placebo also report them. So it is difficult to determine the exact extent of the problem. ".... "In very rare cases statins cause rhabdomyolysis, a severe form of muscle damage in which the breakdown products cause kidney failure. .... "Confusingly, some small studies have hinted that statins increase the risk of cancer while others suggest they may guard against it. .... "Yet even the more conservative guidelines will lead to millions more people taking statins for the rest of their lives, often starting younger or being given higher doses. You could be one of them. If the advocates of statins are right, this policy will come to be seen as a triumph for preventative medicine, saving tens of thousands of lives. If the critics are right, for those with a low risk of heart disease statins could do more harm than good. Which will you bet your life on when your doctor mentions the s-word? " (December 31, 2006)
  • individuals with a 1% risk of heart attack or stroke, 35 or older, could benefit from taking statins to lower cholesterol. ... (Jan 4, 2007)

  • number of lives saved through cholesterol-busting drugs called statins had tripled since 2000 to 9,700 in 2005. (Jan 5, 2007)
  • It is expected that 50% of Scottish men and 20% of women over the age of 40 could be prescribed cholesterol-lowering statins. (Feb 6, 2007)
  • current risk of CVD is 8%, 30% reduction in LDL cholesterol (from 3 to 1.9 mmol/l), 24% reduction in total cholesterol (from 5.1 to 3.88 mmol/l), reduce risk of CVD by 25% - from 1 in 12 (8%) to 1 in 17 (6%) over 10 years, Fibrates or Nicotinic acid treatment targets (after initial statin treatment), Reduce CVD risk to 5% (1 in 20) by increasing HDL cholesterol to medium levels (1.34 mmol/l), Reduce CVD risk to 4% (1 in 25) by increasing HDL cholesterol to high levels (1.73 mmol/l), Reduce CVD risk to 3% (1 in 33) by reducing systolic blood pressure from 130 to 108 mmHg by improving diet and increasing exercise (Feb 9, 2007)
  • statins makes people less likely to develop late-onset Alzheimer's (Feb 17, 2007)

Thursday, 20 January 2011

Statin benefit for low risk people 'questionable'

crabsallover highlightskey pointscomments / links.


Listen to PM 19/1/11 (25'30" - 30' 30") on BBC iPlayer

Prof. Shah Ibrahim (study author) said
  • half the trials didn't give data on adverse effects
  • all trials but one where paid for by industry
  • data of trials show benefits of taking statins
  • 20-30% reduction in heart attacks and strokes
  • 16% reduction in (all-cause) total mortality
Risk Ratio 0.84 = 16% reduction in mortality due to statins

  • benefits are way ahead of any risks
  • not sensible to probe trials for risks
    • why not?
  • severe muscle problems occur 1 per 100,000 per year
    • the trials are not designed to show these risks - why not?
  • 20-30 year olds should not take statins
  • risk of heart attack or stroke doubles every 7 years
  • 1 in 2 will have a heart attack or stroke
  • 1 in 3 will die from a heart attack or stroke
  • taking statins together with blood pressure lowering drugs can reduce risk of heart attacks and strokes if you are in your 50s or older
  • ignor bias from fact that studies are paid by industry - they have been undertaken by reputable researchers


“Up to three million people are taking statins needlessly,” says The Daily Telegraph. It reports that a comprehensive study suggests statins are “ineffective in many cases and could be doing more harm than good”.
The news story is based on a review of trials of statins in people who had not (yet) suffered a cardiovascular event such as a heart attack or stroke. There was some evidence that statins reduced the risk of dying from any cause, and the risk of any cardiovascular outcome. However, the trials and review have several limitations, including some indications that adverse events within the trials were not recorded.
It is important to point out that the benefit of statins in people with cardiovascular disease, who have already suffered a heart attack or stroke, or who are considered to be at high risk of an event, is not in question here.
This review supports the need for careful consideration of the overall cardiovascular risk of the individual when deciding whether to prescribe a statin. In higher-risk populations, the benefits of a drug often clearly outweigh the risks. However, when lower-risk populations are considered, this balance can often tip the other way. The results here do not support the widespread use of statins in people at low risk of cardiovascular events.

Where did the story come from?

The news reports follow a Cochrane systematic review conducted by researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the University of Bristol.
The main conclusion of this review is that there is a lack of quality evidence to support the use of statins in people with low cardiovascular risk. This has been generally reflected in the articles by The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Express. However, the Daily Mail’s headline (“Statins 'may cause loss of memory and depression'”) is incorrect. The researchers’ main concern is that there is not enough reporting of adverse events, not that there is evidence for any particular harm.

What kind of research was this?

This Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis investigated whether statins lower blood cholesterol, thereby reducing cardiovascular risk in people without a history of coronary heart disease (known as “primary prevention”). There is already clear evidence of their benefit in people who have already suffered a heart attack or stroke (known as “secondary prevention”).
A high quality systematic review that searches the medical literature to identify all relevant randomised controlled trials of a particular intervention is the most reliable method of assessing the evidence of its safety and effectiveness. Systematic reviews do have some inherent limitations, in that they rely on individual studies with varied quality, methods, outcomes and follow-up.

What did the research involve?

The researchers searched medical databases for all randomised controlled trials of at least 12 months of statin treatment compared with placebo or usual care, with at least another six months follow-up. To be eligible, trials had to have focused mainly on primary prevention, with less than 10% of the participants having a history of cardiovascular disease. Trials that also investigated other drug treatments were allowed if both the experimental group and control groups took them. The main outcomes that the researchers were interested in were:
  • death from any cause
  • fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular events
  • fatal or non-fatal heart attack or stroke
Secondary outcomes of interest were changes in blood cholesterol, need for revascularisation procedures, adverse effects and quality of life effects. The individual trials were assessed for quality and risk of bias and the trial results were combined, taking into account the variability between study populations, interventions and follow-up (heterogeneity).

What were the basic results?

Fourteen randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. These were in a total 34,272 people who had been followed for between one and five years, equating to 113,000 patient-years of follow-up. The average age of the participants was 57 and 66% were male. The trials were dated 1994-2006 and conducted mostly in Europe, the USA and Japan.
Eleven trials recruited patients with specific conditions that put them at higher cardiovascular risk. In eight of the trials this was raised blood lipids (fat levels), but others included populations with diabetes or hypertension. All trials tested the effectiveness of a statin compared with placebo, of which the most common statin used was pravastatin 10-40mg per day (the drug used in nine trials). Five trials also included advice, counselling or information on lifestyle behaviour, such as smoking cessation, diet and exercise.
Overall, eight trials reported data on death from any cause. A total of 2.8% of the overall study population in these eight trials died during follow-up. Risk of death from any cause was reduced by about 17% (relative risk 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.95) by statins.



Risk Ratio 0.84 = 16% reduction in mortality due to statins

Three large trials demonstrated that statins reduced the risk of any fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular event (relative risk 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.79).
Regarding secondary outcomes, there was evidence that statins reduced the need for revascularisation interventions (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.83). Cholesterol levels reduced in all trials, but the studies were too different to allow the results to be combined for this outcome, mostly because of different statins and doses across the studies.
There was no evidence of any significant harm caused by statins, with no difference in rate in the statin and placebo groups, though the trials had all variously reported adverse effects (ranging from cancer to muscle pain). There was no reliable data to allow assessment of the effect on individuals’ quality of life.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers conclude that statins reduced death from any cause, any cardiovascular event and the need for revascularisation. There was also no evidence that adverse events increased with statins. However, they caution that there is also evidence of “selective reporting of outcomes, failure to report adverse events and inclusion of people with cardiovascular disease”. More details of these are given in the conclusion.
The researchers say that when these things are considered together, there is only “limited evidence” that primary cardiovascular prevention with statins is cost-effective and improves quality of life. They advise caution in the prescription of statins for people who are at low cardiovascular risk.

Conclusion

This review examined the use of a statin for primary prevention in people who have not yet suffered a cardiovascular event, and whose risk of having one varied considerably. It is important to point out that the benefits of statins in people with established cardiovascular disease and who have already suffered a heart attack or stroke, or who are considered to be at high risk of suffering a cardiovascular event, is not in question.
In high-risk populations, the benefits of a drug that prevents disease often clearly outweigh the risks (such as side effects on health and quality of life). However, in lower-risk populations, this balance often begins to tip the other way and the size of the drug’s benefits compared to its harms can become negligible. This is particularly the case with drugs such as statins, where a relatively large proportion of the population are at low cardiovascular risk, some with raised cholesterol but having no other risk factors. There are also feasibility and cost issues to consider when giving a drug to such a potentially large population.
Although there was some evidence of a reduction in death from any cause, any cardiovascular outcome, and need for revascularisation with no increased risk of adverse events, the researchers acknowledge several limitations to this review and the trials within it. These included:
  • The small number of individual cardiovascular events (e.g. stroke or heart attack) that actually occurred during the trials. When separate disease outcomes are quite rare, researchers in the individual trials often compensate for this by instead recording the occurrence of any one of a defined set of outcomes (e.g. all strokes, all heart attacks, all cases of peripheral arterial disease that occurred within the trial, combined all together in one endpoint). The trial then has better ‘power’ to calculate the risk of this ‘composite endpoint’ in the intervention group compared with the control group, than it would have for examining the risk of a single outcome, such as a heart attack. Some of the trials did not even report the numbers that experienced outcomes individually and only reported the numbers with the composite outcome. Therefore it is difficult for the reviewers to gain an accurate picture of whether or not taking a statin has any effect on the person’s risk of suffering a heart attack, or suffering a stroke, as individual disease outcomes.    
  • Some of the trials included people with previous cardiovascular events (i.e. it was not a pure primary prevention population). The researchers only included new studies that had less than 10% secondary prevention populations, but they also included data from previous systematic reviews in their current review, some of which may not have been so stringent in which studies they analysed.
  • It is possible that some of the trials suffered from selective reporting of outcomes, particularly adverse events. The researchers point out that eight of the trials did not report adverse effects at all.
  • Two of the large trials were stopped early due to an observation of benefit in the statin arm. This may lead to an overestimation of the treatment effect.
  • As the researchers indicate, all but one trial had received funding from the pharmaceutical industry, which may potentially allow for biased reporting.
  • The trials included predominantly white, middle-aged populations. Their results may not be applicable to people outside of these groups.
Overall, this review supports the need for careful consideration of the overall cardiovascular risk profile of the individual when deciding whether to prescribe a statin. As the authors of this review conclude, the evidence does not support the widespread use of statins in people at low risk of a cardiovascular event (expected annual risk of death from any cause below 1%, or expected annual risk of any cardiovascular event below 2%).
The findings of the review also highlight the need for further quality trials when statins are used in primary prevention populations, which give full reporting of outcomes.

Links to the headlines

Millions taking statins 'needlessly'The Daily Telegraph, January 19 2011
'Statins overused'Daily Mirror, January 19 2011
Why the 'worried well' should not take statinsDaily Express, January 19 2011

Links to the science

Taylor F, Ward K, Moore THM et alStatins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseaseCochrane Library of Reviews