the scam of the new heart attack risk calculator

[ApatheticNoMore]

The new heart attack risk calculator is such that nearly every senior age man will be prescribed statins under the new statin guidelines. Is that really how it is supposed to work?

Test it yourself. I put in a 70 year old man 150 TC, 70 HDL, 110 systolic, non-smoker, no meds (ie the picture of health - noone is that perfect :)). He still needs statins. Am I doing the math wrong?
http://cvdrisk.nhlbi.nih.gov/calculator.asp

You do get a lot of bonus points for being a woman.

I fully expect diabetes rates to increase due to more statins being prescribed (I think someone I know got diabetes from statins, though an individual case is probably not provable - their blood sugar is decreasing off statins plus lifestyles changes though and yes even the FDA warns of this now).

[reader99]

The influence that profit-motivated drug companies have on medical care frightens me to death. Diabetes is a cash cow for pharmaceutical companies - live long and buy meds continually - and it sounds like statins are another cash cow that feeds into the first one.

[sweetana3]

It should be a personal decision, thankfully it still is, whether to take any drug or allow any procedure. I refuse statins and truly feel that the changes in "rules" are more to increase the drug companies profit than to increase health. (hubby worked for a huge pharma company) They love nothing more than chronic "conditions" they can medicate forever.

My genes are good, I am losing weight and exercising, never smoked.

Even the experts say it is impossible to find an expert panel that does not have extensive ties to the pharm companies involved.

[catherine]

A lot of cardiologists and primary care doctors who don't necessarily have skin in the game are totally sold on the benefits of statins. Years ago when they first came out, I heard cardiologists say that everyone should be on them--kind of like the recommendation for daily low-dose aspiring today. When I had my physical, my doctor told me I should be on a statin. I have no risk of heart disease, I have very high HDL, take no other medications, and my blood pressure is normal. Still, he said that he would want his own parents on them daily--that everyone should be. In his eyes, they are the fountain of youth.

I respectfully declined his offer.

As for the Big Pharma hand in this, yes, you can be sure they aren't sitting there reading this news saying, "Well, what do you know!" However, statins are generic now, so the big winners are going to be the makers of generics, and generics have a MUCH lower price tag. That being said, this isn't lost on Big Pharma, and many companies are looking into "branded generics" in order to increase the price of the "generic generics."

Yes, this is great news for Pharma. Personally, I don't believe in magic bullets, especially ones you have to pay for for the rest of your life to benefit from. I'll take my chances with my fruits and veggies and daily walks.


ETA: I just did the calculator and came up with 2% risk.

[Suzanne]

I ran my actual figures through the calculator. It gave me less than 1% risk. This corresponds very closely with the huge Archimedes algorithm risk calculation I ran last year - took literally hours for the computer to crunch the data, and it asked for a LOT of data, as well as the Kaiser Permanente in-house risk calculator.

I wouldn't take statins even if they should be prescribed. I'm not sold on the cholesterol hypothesis, and think that whatever benefit statins may have for younger men who have already had a heart attack (the group for whom statins do help), it's probably to do with reducing inflammation. Should my inflammation markers rise, I'd work on diet and lifestyle.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Yea when I put in a woman with the same hypotheticals they came out low risk (mucho bonus points for not being a man). I think there is a very specific group the test says should be on statins REGARDLESS of what their other figures are: older men (the 70 year old man in my example). Now they don't' come out and say this: all elderly men should be on statins, but that's in there. Which would make sense if they really believe everyone should be on statins if only they could (let's put it in the water - no doubt some alrelady is :( ) but it wont' make sense to most people if they realized you are medicating a normal human condition: being male and getting older (even if they were the healthiest older man imaginable).

[JaneV2.0]

It's a massive money-making scam. The Australian Heart Association is up in arms because ABC's Catalyst did a two-part expose' and people are starting to ask pertinent questions. There is no proof that statins save or extend lives in any but one tiny group of middle-aged men who have had heart attacks. And even at that the number needed to treat is high. Every single person I have personally known has had horrendous side effects from taking them, including unbearable muscle pain, kidney damage, and confusion. But boy oh boy are statins a bonanza for Pharma.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLR2OKesTw0

Edited to add: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/14/opinion/dont-give-more-patients-statins.html?_r=1&

Most people who have heart attacks have low or normal cholesterol. I wouldn't take a statin for any reason.

[The Storyteller]

As a matter of fact, most men over 40 have artery disease, probably almost 100% over 65, so the hypothetical in the OP makes perfect sense to me.

[ApatheticNoMore]

As a matter of fact, most men over 40 have artery disease, probably almost 100% over 65, so the hypothetical in the OP makes perfect sense to me.

So what? Most men when they die have the beginnings of prostrate cancer. But noone cares because they will die of other things first and this is the case even if they die at quite a ripe old age, it just doesn't develop enough to cause any threat to the natural lifespan (if people were immortal then yes it would be a problem). It seems to me that even if all men have artery disease the same principle applies, it will pose no threat to many of their natural lifespans, so it's treating men that don't need to be treated with meds that are not without side effects.

I think if they don't come out and say "yes this calculator is pretty much designed so every older man will show they should get statins", there's an element of dishonesty to it as well. People might think it's only because their x number is high or something, when it's really just that they think all older men should be on statins - and one can make their decision accordingly knowing that.

[Lainey]

Not to mention that if your BP is 120/80, you're now considered "pre-hypertensive." yes, we are all supposed to be below that number now. Bah.

[jp1]

Reading this thread and how most, if not all, 70 year old men should be on statins based on these new guidelines makes me wonder if the difference in lifespan between men and women is somehow related. Perhaps they're onto something. On the other hand I don't especially want to live to be 90 just for the sake of living that long if I'm going to spend 20 years taking a medicine that has dreadful side effects.

SO, 48 years old, started taking statins 3 months ago at his doc's recommendation, as well as iron because he's anemic. It's been a few months now and he feels way worse all the time than he did prior to going to the doc. The muscle aches alone would be enough to make me seriously reconsider whether I thought it was worth it.

[kib]

Oh this whole thing makes me want to spit. Elevated cholesterol is a response, not a disease. Why can't this country address underlying issues instead of selling bandaids that barely work and usually make things worse. Oh, yes, the operant word ... SELLING.

[herbgeek]

My parents have both been on statins for years. They are super forgetful and both have bad bone pains. I've been telling dad about the bad side effects so long dad tapered off the meds to none and says he hasn't felt this good in years. They are of the generation where the doctor is always right and not to be questioned, so that's huge he did that. Dad is much more with it and energetic. He just wrote it off as old age and not side effects.

[enota]

We have been taught to fear the word "risk" with the implication that it means a level of certainty when, in fact, it does not. For instance, if you are a mountain climber you have a much higher risk of dying while mountain climbing than someone who never sets foot on a mountain. But that certainly does not mean you are going to die while doing it. The same holds true with nearly everything.

I am sick (no pun intended) of the medical profession terrorizing people into taking far more medication that is necessary or reasonable and putting America (and apparently other countries as well), into some kind of false panic in the name of profit. Shame on them.

I will tell you that as far as I am concerned, high blood pressure medicine is no better. I am convinced that one of the reasons that so many elder folk are getting Alzheimer's is because they are not getting enough blood to their brains courtesy of their hypertension meds, but of course, nobody will admit to that.

[JaneV2.0]

My mother's cognitive function went on the skids when a doctor put her on what I call the "geriatric cocktail." A friend of mine ended up with a constellation of cascading problems that culminated in kidney failure. Elevated cholesterol is associated with longer life in the elderly. And no wonder--your nervous system is made of it.You'll get me on that crap when you tie me down and put a gun to my head. If then.


ETA: Blood pressure medication is implicated in many falls (one of the leading causes of death and disability in the elderly) because of orthostatic hypertension. They stand up, become light-headed and disoriented, and fall. There are no benign pharmaceuticals.

[reader99]

Oh this whole thing makes me want to spit. Elevated cholesterol is a response, not a disease. Why can't this country address underlying issues instead of selling bandaids that barely work and usually make things worse. Oh, yes, the operant word ... SELLING.

Thank you. Exactly. When they start addressing the underlying inflammation problem I'll have some respect for it.

[The Storyteller]

A few thoughts...

I have been on a high dosage of statins for over 10 years now and have had zero side effects.

If someone is having severe side effects to any drug, they probably shouldn't be on it. My wife has high cholesterol and the doctor tried various brands of statins (different ones affect different people differently) and they all had side effects, so he took her off. She now only uses diet and fish oil tablets.

Calculators don't prescribe medicine. Doctors do.

If your GP prescribes a statin, ask for a referral to a cardiologist. If the cardiologist agrees, take the statins.

Cholesterol does in fact cause hardening of the arteries and heart disease. Yes, inflammation can be a contributing factor, but it is cholesterol that does the actual damage.

Hardening of the arteries occurs in more than one place in your body. If it is affecting your heart, it is also affecting your legs, arms, and brain and is one of the contributing factors in dementia.

Diet does affect all this. You start with diet and can avoid all this, but if you already have arteriosclerosis, you probably need statins, too, at least to reverse it as quickly as possible. Once it is reversed, you can relax on the statins. That is why my cardiologist wants me to wait a year before possibly adjusting my drugs.

You are free to ignore Internet calculators. I routinely do.

You are free to ignore your doctor's advice. She isn't going to hold a gun to your head.

But I wouldn't advise it.

[JaneV2.0]

http://phys.org/news203844242.html
Just one of many articles suggesting cholesterol is protective. (Japanese study)

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/menoexcerpt.asp?id=65&chapterID=2 (women and LDL)

"Another study showed that statins not only fail to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in people between seventy and eighty-two years old who don’t already have heart disease, but they significantly increase the risk of cancer in this population (by 25 percent).22 Other studies have not found a higher cancer risk with statin use, but the people in those studies were much younger.

Another study found that for women who have reached the age of sixty-five, not only is high cholesterol not a health risk, but—going directly against our common wisdom—the higher older women’s bad (LDL) cholesterol levels, the longer they live.23 The catch is that the women in this study lived in small Italian towns, almost certainly eating healthier diets and getting more exercise than most Americans." (ed note: and having a stronger social support system.)

If you're worried about atherosclerosis, you can get a CT scan, rather than playing guess'n'gulp with drugs. Also, this site has a list of appropriate tests (scroll down). http://blog.trackyourplaque.com/

[Selah]

Just a side note--my father was an M.D. (dermatologist) who also always claimed that men routinely die of other things than prostate cancer, even if they already have had prostate cancer for a long time. He never got a prostate screening, and was in "perfect health," until he was in pain and finally went for an MRI. He was immediately diagnosed with Stage Four...prostate cancer. He died, six months after the diagnosis, at age 82 from prostate cancer, having spent his entire adult life without any illnesses greater than a cold. "G-d's great banana peel," as the song goes.

[pinkytoe]

DH has three older male relatives who were all put on statins in their early 60s. All three have now been diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes even though not overweight - in fact all border on too lean. Is there a correlation?

[ApatheticNoMore]

Is there a correlation?

Definitely. The FDA now has a warning that statins increase your risk of diabetes. There were enough studies to convince them. Anecdotally, you'll find whole websites of diabetics that say as long as they were on statins, the blood sugar was through the roof no matter what their lifestyle. It wouldn't surprise me if with mass statin prescription we have a diabetes epidemic on our hands. Never mind that diabetes *itself* increases your risk of heart attack (uh oh - plus a dozen other complications). And everyone will just pretend such a diabetes epidemic if it happened is solely because people are fat, or eating too much sugar and carbs, and getting too little exercise (all probably true, but what about the statins?).

[The Storyteller]

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.