Total Pageviews

Friday, 19 August 2016

Beyond Confusion and Controversy, Can We Evaluate the Real Efficacy and Safety of Cholesterol-Lowering with Statins?


A strong controversy has emerged about the reality of safety and efficacy of statins as stated by company-sponsored reports. However, physicians need credible data to make medical decisions, in particular about the benefit/harm balance of any prescription.

 This study aimed to test the validity of data on the company-sponsored statin trial by comparing them over time and then comparing statins with each other. Around the years 2005/2006, new stricter Regulations were introduced in the conduct and publication of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This would imply that RCTs were less reliable before 2006 than they were later on. To evaluate this, we first reviewed RCTs testing the efficacy of statins versus placebo in preventing cardiovascular complications and published after 2006.

Our systematic review thereby identified four major RCTs, all testing rosuvastatin. They unambiguously showed that rosuvastatin is not effective in secondary prevention, while the results are highly debatable in primary prevention. Because of the striking clinical heterogeneity and the inconsistency of the published data in certain RCTs, meta-analysis was not feasible.

 We then examined the most recent RCTs comparing statins to each other: all showed that no statin is more effective than any other, including rosuvastatin. Furthermore, recent RCTs clearly indicate that intense cholesterol-lowering (including those with statins) does not protect high-risk patients any better than less-intense statin regimens. As for specific patient subgroups, statins appear ineffective in chronic heart failure and chronic kidney failure patients. 

We also conducted a MEDLINE search to identify all the RCTs testing a statin against a placebo in diabetic patients, and we found that once secondary analyses and subgroup analyses are excluded, statins do not appear to protect diabetics.

 As for the safety of statin treatment – a major issue for medical doctors – it is quite worrisome to realize that it took 30 years to bring to light the triggering effect of statins on new-onset diabetes, manifestly reflecting a high level of bias in reporting harmful outcomes in commercial trials, as has been admitted by the recent confession of prominent experts in statin treatment. In conclusion, this review strongly suggests that statins are not effective for cardiovascular prevention. The studies published before 2005/2006 were probably flawed, and this concerned in particular the safety issue. A complete reassessment is mandatory. Until then, physicians should be aware that the present claims about the efficacy and safety of statins are not evidence based.

Full text:



Conniecrafter said...

My hubby was told to go on one and he actually took them for like a week and than didn't like the way he felt so he went off of them, it worries me because Heart Disease has hit everyone of the male family members on his side of the family, but it sounds like he may have made the right decision, it's so scary how things that are suppose to help us can also hurt us in other ways.

Linda said...

My husband is on on statins and his doctor is convinced this is beneficial. I have my doubts but they don't listen to me.

Crafty Green Poet said...

I would never take statins again and would always advise people against taking them, there are too many side effects and there is too much misinformation about cholesterol around