effectiveness of statins

[David Staup]

The following is a guote from another forum that was posted by a man who was damaged in much the same way we were but by niacin to lower cholesterol...he has hesitated to join our group because it was not a statin that damaged him....I will invite him here so that we can get his perspective on lowering cholesterol by any means...

I think his input will be helpfull to new members still worried by their "Numbers"

"To measure a drugs performance, it is important to look at the absolute risk reduction expessed as NUMBER NEEDED TO TREAT. Also known as NNT scores.

Number Needed to Treat is the number of people who have to take the drug for just one person to benefit. A benefit is defined as preventing a bad event such as a heart attack or stroke. This is where the truth comes out. And in most trials you have less than a 1% absolute risk reduction with statins.

In the recent JUPITER trial. 288 people had to be treated with Crestor for almost two years to spare one person a stroke. And 241 had to be treated for almost 2 years to spare one person a heart attack. And 120 people had to be treated for almost two years to prevent a heart attack, sroke or death from CV causes.

With Lipitor 100 guys had to take lipitor for 3.3 years to spare one man a bad event. Typical statin performance.

If you think these numbers are good odds, go for it. But I honestly think you have better odds at the Casino.

BTW, with Penicillin you don't have to treat 100 people for 3.3 years for one person to clear up an infection. Drugs like that perform significantly better. "

David

[gotts1936]

David, having lived in Reno, Nevada, I can honestly say that the odds in a Nevada casino is much better the most of the medications promoted by the drug companies. There are no side effects or complications when you lose at a casino. I know some will say, oh yeah, you can lose youir home if you lose all your money at a casino, but you know what can happen if you lose! Take medication and quess what, liver damage, kidney damage, muscle damage, etc. and now the drug companies can sell more drugs to try and solve your new medical problems.

gotts

[skyhawk172]

Concerning the effectiveness of statins:

Looking at the big picture, you can track the death rates from heart attacks on a graph from 1900 to 2000. Heart attacks in the USA peaked around 1968 and have steadily declined since.

The graph line from 1968 to present makes a gradual point A to point B decending course line from 1968 to today.

Stains were introduced in 1987, and enjoyed skyrocketing sales from 1990 to 2000 with Lipitor taking the number one spot as the world's top selling drug.

So what did all these statin sales do to alter the heart attack course line on the graph? [b]NOTHING[/b]. Nothing at all. There is no corresponding dip in the gragh line. It just keeps its gradual decent that began in 1968 to today, oblivious of the presence of these new drugs.

Skyhawk

[bradford]

The drop in heart attacks can be attributed to people stop smoking.

See *http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig_smoking/

[skyhawk172]

Yes. Its interesting to observe that the smoking rate in the united states was 42% in 1968. Today the smoking rate in the states is exactly half at 21%, and likewise the death rate from heart attacks is also half.

Meanwhile we can observe the skyrocketing sales of statins did not even put a dent in the graph line of heart attack death rates.