Statins may lower risk of heart disease in people with sleep apnea

[DWaldman]

Now for a completely unscientific opinion. Statins can cause muscle problems. The heart is a muscle. That reason alone is enough for me to steer clear. I may be crazy, but it is my crazy...

[DariaVader]

In addition, studies outside the US (Germany for one) have shown that statins can reduce brain function causing poor recall, and confused logic. Makes perfect sense since the brain is made up of cholesterol.

[eseedhouse]

Now for a completely unscientific opinion. Statins can cause muscle problems. The heart is a muscle. That reason alone is enough for me to steer clear. I may be crazy, but it is my crazy...

I generally prefer reason and the above doesn't sound like good reasoning to me.

The heart is quite different from skeletal muscles. It is the only muscle which is working all day every day. As such it has a special design and special protections. High levels of bad cholesterol can result in plaques in your arteries which can cut of blood to your heart and cause the heart pain (angina) or the death of parts of your heart (myocardial infarction). Statins generally reduce that risk.

Every medicine carries risks and benefits. The question is do the risks outweigh the benefits? And the science says pretty clearly that for most people the benefits outweigh the risks. People who take them pretty clearly have fewer heart attacks than people who don't.

The effect is small, however, and only becomes significant when we consider large populations. So if you find out you are one of those who get the bad side effects it's rational to stop taking them.

But it isn't reasonable, in my opinion, to tell other people to stop them based only on your own personal experience with them, or because you hear of a few friends or acquaintances have had bad experiences with them. Because the people who don't have bad experiences with them generally don't bother to tell you about it.

[DariaVader]

I don't see anyone advising others not to take them. I see folk who are defending their own decisions not to take them themselves.

[DWaldman]

Would never think of telling anyone to stop or start any medical or drug program... That is why I said it is unscientific, and my own crazy. Statins do cause me overall pain though, so for that reason alone I don't take them. I also think they are more hype than hope.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

In addition, studies outside the US (Germany for one) have shown that statins can reduce brain function causing poor recall, and confused logic. Makes perfect sense since the brain is made up of cholesterol.

Studies show lots of things. There are many studies which show quite the opposite, double-blind research which shows that statins have no adverse events compared to placebos.

Make a list of substances you consume. No doubt there will be a study linking any and all of the substances with some calamity. I took heartburn meds until a study linked those with heart disease. But chronic heartburn also causes stomach cancer. Pick your poison I guess.

What the medical profession does is weight the studies and make recommendations, with a lot of precautions taken. Why are statins so heavily prescribed? Is it because of a conspiracy, or could it be the fact that heart disease is the #1 killer of Americans, and Westerners, by far? My guess would be the latter, since a lot of statins are now off-patent and don't really generate a lot of revenue for drug companies.

Any and all medication carries risk, and benefits. The decision to give them out is more of an art than a science and it's up to the individual and his doctor.

Also, I'm pretty sure that saying that "the brain is made up of cholesterol" is not a fact. Cholesterol is absolutely required by the body, but your brain is not pure cholesterol. I'm pretty sure it's comprised of amino acids and other compounds, and sort of held together with cholesterol. I'm not a biologist, however. That's my layperson understanding of how the body works.

Not only that but statins don't eliminate all cholesterol, they bring your serum cholesterol to an "acceptable" level. So it's not like your body would run out of cholesterol.

[49er]

This pub med link shows how physicians' aren't taking seriously patient complaints of adverse reactions to statins even even when there is strong literature support for a connection and even in patients for whom the symptom met presumptive literature-based criteria for probable or definite drug-adverse effect causality.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17696579

[Inspired]

Ed,

I have to respectfully disagree with your point of view. I think all of us understand that causation doesn't necessarily equal correlation. But at the same time, if I start a drug and get a side effect that I have never had a problem with prior to starting the meds, there are great odds that the drug is the culprit.

Sadly, many people's lives are destroyed because many doctors (not all) refuse to believe meds can cause side effects. Instead, they are put through unnecessary and costly tests that don't help and instead result in a worsening condition due to not looking at the drug as a possible culprit.

Regarding the studies you mention, not to sound like a conspiracy theorist but many of them are influenced by drug companies and can't be trusted. Many MDs have made that point so it isn't just a wacky opinion by 49er.

49er

Simvastatin, what I take, is now a generic so the big pharma companies don't really have any skin in the game as far as that drug is concerned. A month's supply costs something like $5, basically the same as aspirin more or less. Yet they are still conducting many studies on simvastatin.

I work for a CRO (contract research organization) that works for pharma companies so I know a little bit about clinical trials. While their has been some monkey business in the past (as with anything), I do trust the process.

I will agree though that the media makes the situation 10x worse though, whereas any given drug is either a wonder drug for all life's ills, or it causes any malady in the end.

I respect your POV however and think taking any drug should be up to the patient, ultimately, and we shouldn't dismiss anyone's symptoms or opinions. You need to be your own advocate.

Blindly trust anyone, be it pharma companies, the FDA, or Mercola, etc., is a recipe for disaster. Look at how many people are sent home with CPAP settings with too low minimum pressures? Not a disaster necessarily, but how many people are quitting CPAP and not getting the care they need because DME's like these low minimum settings? People who never heard of this forum or have no idea how to adjust these settings?

There are drug disasters like Vioxx and phen phen too. One thing about Simvastatins is that they have been used for a long time now, which means that there is much less chance for situations like this. There is good reason to be cautious with brand new wonder-drugs.

YOu really do have to be your own advocate and never blindly trust anyone or anything.

"Here, Here"!
Words of Wisdom!

[DariaVader]

Studies show lots of things. There are many studies which show quite the opposite, double-blind research which shows that statins have no adverse events compared to placebos.

Make a list of substances you consume. No doubt there will be a study linking any and all of the substances with some calamity. I took heartburn meds until a study linked those with heart disease. But chronic heartburn also causes stomach cancer. Pick your poison I guess.

What the medical profession does is weight the studies and make recommendations, with a lot of precautions taken. Why are statins so heavily prescribed? Is it because of a conspiracy, or could it be the fact that heart disease is the #1 killer of Americans, and Westerners, by far? My guess would be the latter, since a lot of statins are now off-patent and don't really generate a lot of revenue for drug companies.

Any and all medication carries risk, and benefits. The decision to give them out is more of an art than a science and it's up to the individual and his doctor.

Also, I'm pretty sure that saying that "the brain is made up of cholesterol" is not a fact. Cholesterol is absolutely required by the body, but your brain is not pure cholesterol. I'm pretty sure it's comprised of amino acids and other compounds, and sort of held together with cholesterol. I'm not a biologist, however. That's my layperson understanding of how the body works.

Not only that but statins don't eliminate all cholesterol, they bring your serum cholesterol to an "acceptable" level. So it's not like your body would run out of cholesterol.

25% of your cholesterol is in your brain. Cholesterol is also absolutely vital to the entire central nervous system. As for studies... the link between statins and impaired cognitive function is now so well recognized that a warning about the risk of dementia and mental confusion is being mandated by the FDA on at least some of the statins.

[Asjb]

Nothing, and I mean nothing, could ever get me to take a statin ever again.

Me too. 13 days of statin treatment put me in Intensive Care for a week with acute hepatitis, acute liver failure and systemic inflammatory syndrome...

Diagnosis (by a national liver expert):
Drug Induced Liver Injury caused by atorvastatine.

Two and a half years later I still have intermittent symptoms, and my liver blood tests have never returned to normal.

But - the good news was that after the 13 days of the statin,my cholesterol levels were ridiculously low...!

Ever since then I have unsuccessfully been trying to persuade any doctors I see for anything to start their patients who need a statin on the lowest possible dose, increasing it gently and slowly only if muscle and liver tolerated. No one has listened to me yet.

Many countries have systems for reporting drug side-effects to a central Registry but I suspect (I have no proof) that the liver and muscle problems with statins are now so well known that doctors do not bother to report them any more. The upshot of course is that statin safety statistics may be seriously innacurate.