My questions previously was 'Do Statins have a harmful effect on other parts of the body'?

Question

Thanks so much for the many replies nearly all of which gave terrible details of the effects these drugs can have on liver/brain/muscles. Is there anybody out there who is taking statins successfully without side effects?

Answer 1

Rosie, - I answered your previous question honestly in the light of my (our) own experiences, which in hindsight perhaps were too gloomy. But then, I'm 80, and clearly biassed, and addressed the question simply as it was put.

On the positive side, now that you ask it, if I were well under 70, I'd certainly take statins without hesitation. They do work, and are beneficial. It's only old wrinklies like me they tend to kill off faster! That's a proven statistic. But not younger people, for whom they appear to be, (like daily aspirin) wholly positive.

Bear in mind however, that not all statins are the same. They are selective in their side-effects with diff'rent people, so if one gives you perpetual itching (my first one did) try another. If it gives you muscular cramps or joint pains, try another.
One will work and be good for you.

I hope this is more cheerful and reassuring? Sorry if the first reply was so depressing,...it was just answering the way the question was put! ...no offence, doom, or gloom intended.

Answer 2

I started taking a statin, After 6 months I thought I would need a rotator cuff repair. Then I remembered the possible muscle damage. Yesterday I took my last statin, hoping to see where the shoulder and upper arm pain came from. And the pain was not effected by any pain reliever. Will tell the pc doc and where I go from there.

Answer 3

Further to Dr Frank's answer. If any of the readers are male, too much oestrogen is not good for you since the excess to your requirements is converted by the liver as part of the cytochrome P450 processes to LdL cholesterol (that's the bad one). Taking a zinc supplement inhibits the CYP19a (P450arom) aromatization of androgens (testosterone) to oestrogens and, therefore helps to limit the excess oestrogen.

Personally, I had a lot of muscle cramps after taking Symvastatin then Atorvastatin over a period of 12 years. I tried taking Red Yeast Rice but although I got rid of the muscle cramps, the cholesterol control was not as good. I'm now on Pravastatin and putting up with the cramps.

Answer 4

Higher doses of statins may be associated with a greater risk of side effects. Side effects tend to be dose-related and may disappear after reducing the dosage or, if necessary, withdrawing the medication.
This is the opinion of American Heart Association

Answer 5

i hope not as i have been taking Simvastatin for 5 years after triple by pass cant think of anything except a lot of aches when i get up and have developed Arthritis but i attach that to age middle 80s and i take Aspirin every morning and other tabs as well so it could be yes or no but you live with it and think positive hoping the drug houses have got it right

Answer 6

So doctor Frank thinks that statins save lives. This exemplifies the statement that doctors are dangerous.
No primary intervention trial on statins has ever shown a decrease in mortality. In other words,in every trial that involves people who have not had a heart attack, for every decrease in death from CHD, there has been an increase in death from other causes. There has not been any difference in mortality between the trial and control groups, just the manner of death.

It is only in trials that involve people who have already had a heart attack (secondary prevention) that there has been a decrease in mortality. In these trials however, there was no correlation between how much cholesterol was lowered and mortality.
Let's consider the TNT trial, one of the few trials where the only variable is the amount of the same statin given.Approx 10,000 people with CHD were divided into two groups. One group received 80mg of atorvastatin, while the others received 10 mg. As to be expected there was a significantly greater decrease in cholesterol levels amongst those receiving the higher dose, 16.39% greater in fact
http://users.bigpond.com/topdog_minidiggers/pictures/charts/tnt1.gif
Given that cholesterol is meant to cause heart disease, we would expect a similar reduction on coronary events amongst those that received the higher dose. Guess what?
The death rate due to cardiovascular causes was a whole 0.5% lower in the 80 mg group This is hardly signifigant.
The overall death rate was nearly identical, 0.1% lower in the low dose group
http://users.bigpond.com/topdog_minidiggers/pictures/charts/tnt2.gif
The only sane conclusion from this is that the amount of lowering of cholesterol levels has no bearing on the protection from CHD .Now, if this trial had a controll group receiving no statin and it followed the pattern in other statin trials on men with existing CHD, then we would have seen a decrease in mortalitity from CHD amongst those receiving the statins just large enough to slightly outweigh the increase in deaths from other causes. Remember that this only applies to secodary intervention trials for men.
As for side effects;
"Adverse events related to treatment occurred in 406 patients in the group given 80 mg of atorvastatin, as compared with 289 patients in the group given 10 mg of atorvastatin (8.1 percent vs. 5.8 percent, P<0.001). The respective rates of discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events were 7.2 percent and 5.3 percent (P<0.001)."
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/14/1425?ijkey=cf32df3687292685e3ea7a2442f6af0389eed45a
In other words the higher dose group had adverse reactions at a rate 2.3% higher than the lower dose group and withdrawels from the trial due to these reactions was 2.1% higher in the high dose group. So, besides the level of cholesterol lowering, the only thing that increased with a higher dose was adverse reactions

Another study, the Japan Lipid Intervention Trial, involved 30,000 men all recieving the same dose of the same drug, then being grouped according to LDL lowering.
http://www.thincs.org/Malcol15.gif
As you can see, there is no correlation at all between death from CDH and LDL levels.

Any benefit from taking statins,as small as it is in a small group of people, is not due to the cholesterol lowing. Asprin and fish oil have a similar efficacy, without the adverse risks. (Yes I know that asprin can have side affects, but nothing like statins.)

No trial has ever shown a benefit from statins for women

Answer 7

Statins save lives!!!!!!
They are so far into the benefit range, looking at risk benefit ratios that it has recently been calculated and suggested that all males over 50 years would be statistically at benefit if they took them, ( statistically because of the cardio-protective effects of oestrogen women would start later.)

Currently about 15% of adults take them, there are only a tiny percentage for whom they are unsuitable and these are quickly discovered by clinical monitoring and checks of liver function. I have taken 80mgs of Atorvastatin for 9 years personally and overall feel that these lifesaving drugs are still grossly underused.

Answer 8

i take atorvastatin,and had no side affects,not as i know of, you"v got me worried now