Millions more to be put on statins
1Mickey
Posts: 10,427 Forum Member
✭✭
Official guidance now recommends giving the cholesterol-busting drugs to eight in 10 men aged over 50 and half of all women older than 60.
The proposal by drug watchdog the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence could also see more than twice as many people over the age of 40 taking statins to lower their risk of a heart attack or stroke.
It would see the number of people eligible for the treatment more than double, from five million to 12 million.
At present, only those with a 20 per cent risk of developing cardiovascular disease within 10 years are offered statins.
Nice wants this threshold halved to include all people with a 10 per cent risk. Some experts oppose the change. They claim it will lead to the “statinisation” of Britain, accusing Nice of going “too far down the pharmacological route”.
Some GPs say many older patients will be put on statins because they are at higher risk of a heart attack or stroke simply because of their age.
In a survey of family doctors, many claimed there was insufficient evidence that the benefits of the drugs outweigh risks from side-effects.
These cause many patients to stop taking them.
Many GPs also fear the move will significantly increase workloads and make existing appointment problems worse.
In the survey by Pulse magazine, six in 10 GPs opposed the draft proposal to slash the threshold at which patients are prescribed statins.
Writing in Pulse, Dr Kathryn Griffith, a GP in York with a special interest in cardiology, said she was worried that the new guidance will automatically class too many older people as high-risk.
She said: “I am concerned that perhaps things have gone too far. All my older patients are at increased cardiovascular risk because of age rather than, for example, cholesterol levels – and they will all be over 10 per cent risk.
“In their 90s, they have passed the risk of premature heart disease. I think we should avoid offering a treatment to a group whose only risk is related to their age and for whom there is no outcome evidence. This group of patients is also the one most likely to *suffer side-effects.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/health/462943/Millions-more-need-statins-according-to-experts-but-GPs-fight-plans
I'm one of those people who gets suspicious when doctors start trying to prescribe drugs to ward off things I allegedly might get in the future. What do others think about this?
0
Comments
It does make me wonder.
I'd like to think that it's for the good of all. But how often are the government so altruisitc and generous to the people? Especially this one?
What's the catch?
We're told to be cautious and on guard when salespeople try to sell you something you didn't think you needed before.
But now we're supposed to just let that guard down because it's government recommendations?
Here's a link to a news article which raises one or two questions...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10671384/Side-effects-risk-to-rise-as-millions-more-take-statins.html
Drug studies carried out in pharma funded research centres, medical journal authors with financial ties to pharma companies, doctors paid for recommending certain drugs etc etc. Who do you trust?
You're lucky. I stopped them completely and a year later I still have the hangover of the problems caused.
Sorry, I'd rather snuff it 5 years earlier than spend 10, 15 or 20 years in pain.
The article is about the guidance being changed so millions more, people with only a 10% risk could be put on statins. Its not just about the side effects, although their are afew more than you mentioned.
Memory loss
Muscle wastage
impotence
Kidney damage
Apparently, asylum seekers are queuing up at Calais to sail over and fill their socks, courtesy of our NHS.
I bet P&O are marketing their services as "Statin island ferries".
Last year he went on another brand and within a couple of months he had the same problem it took 3 months for the side effects to wear off.
He will not be taking them again
Its all very well for the medical professionals to say the benefits outweigh the side effects, but when you are realativly young and need a stick to get around and when your wife is also affected as you cant do anything together , then these side effects are very serious indeed
I think it should make everyone concerned, considering that in one way or another we're all paying for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdHQQpcXjf4
Within 6 weeks, my legs were achy and tired and I could barely walk any distance (before the statins I was walking 5k 3 times a week). I also had memory issues.
You are supposed to have a liver function test after a month and I requested one from my GP to be safe - they had no idea it was required. It took another 2 blood tests before a locum who had happened to answer the phone to the phlebotomy department at the hospital that day realised my liver function numbers had gone through the roof and had been for a couple of months. The locum phoned me and told me to stop taking them immediately. It has taken 8 months for me to be somewhere close to the "normal" range again, and I'm still having issues.
Statins are fantastic in the right circumstances - they've been great for my husband - but the "one size fits all" policy simply doesn't work when it comes to medication. How much extra will it cost the NHS to fix any problems Statins cause to people they aren't suitable for?
Not encourage the public to rely on drugs.
That may make sense to you and me but the unfortunate reality is that there's much more money to be made from the treatment than from the cure. Its the capitalist way.
How does this work? Do the Pharma companies pay the government a fee to get the health service to promote their products? Do doctors get some kind of payment for recommending certain drugs?
Does anybody know exactly how this works?
All of the above. GP's get "Quality Of Outcomes" points for certain outcomes and achieving the outcomes (eg lower cholesterol rates) means more money.
Guidelines are being re-written partly because of the low price of statins which cost a few pence a day. Low-dose statins cost around £1 a month per patient.
Look at the figures ALL patients over age 60 no matter how much they earn get free prescriptions ( at the moment) so even a low dosage at a quid a pop will cost the nhs money.
However encourage a few million people over 40 to take them and unless they are on benefits or have other health problems that enable them to get free prescriptions they will be paying £7.85 for each prescription.
GPs will be encouraged to only prescribe a month at a time to monitor side effects thats a lot of money to be made.
if the patent was still on statins and the cost higher there would not be a drive to get millions more using them even if they pay full price for their prescriptions if their payments do not cover the cost of the drug
After a few weeks I started to feel "strange" I felt numb at times, and felt sleepy and lethargic at others. I went back to my gp and he said that there was nothing wrong even though I specifically asked him about side effects of the statins.
I realised that the only thing different in my life at this time was the statins so decided to cut them out, and within a month the symptoms had gone, but my gp instead of looking into why they gave these effects berated me for ages and told me I shouldn't bother coming back if I didn't take prescribed medication.
After this I went to the practice nurse and she took regular bloods to check cholesterol levels over a period of time, and found my levels were far lower (average 4.5) than the only test before the doc gave me the drug.
She told me plainly that she believes the NHS is playing on peoples fear in their approach to statin prescription.
You have every right to.
GPs are really pushing these on to people now. The only reason is that they have targets to meet. They told someone I know that they were a prime candidate to go on them but neither he or myself bought that for one moment. GPs can say what they like to try and persuade someone they should be doing or taking anything, but they can't force you.
You're far from alone in that. One of my neighbours had severe muscle pain, muscle wastage, memory problems (although he wouldn't say it at the time, he's since said he thought he was losing his mind), impotency (a lot of men who take statins end up needing Viagra). When he said to his doctor that it all started after the statins and he'd decided to stop taking them, she threatened to take him off her books. Now he just throws them away.
Quick mention for the good doctors Rest, Exercise, and Diet (nutrition).
no one warned me of that side effect, or that it should be reported, i was on the lowest dose and i have permanent muscle damage after taking them for 10 weeks. my sister in law has spent several weeks in hospital recently with severe muscle wastage, she was on them too, i don`t know if that`s the cause of her sickness but it does hint at it.
my doctor scoffed at the notion and then said "i don`t know why you`re on them anyway, you don`t need them"? well i didn`t just rock up and start demanding scripts.
Doctor: They're marvellous, aren't they?
Edmund: Well, the bottom one wasn't. I just sat there and squashed it.
Doctor: You know the leech comes to us on the highest authority?
Edmund: Yes. I know that. Dr. Hoffmann of Stuttgart, isn't it?
Doctor: That's right, the great Hoffmann.
Edmund: Owner of the largest leech farm in Europe.
Mine caused crippling Achilles tendonitis (apparently a common effect, but the UK medical service are totally ignorant of it) - so I stopped taking them, fine again now.
Not been to see the doctor yet (too much hassle getting appointments), but I'll get round to it eventually.