Clare McHarris posted the following on the Stopped Out Statins Yahoo group which I pasted in its entirety here. Thank You Clare!
===========================
News regarding statins. The latest studies  in the Archives of Internal Medicine are not supportive of  statins. This was released today. Please read the two abstracts below.
Statins  and All-Cause Mortality in High-Risk Primary Prevention
A  Meta-analysis of 11 Randomized Controlled Trials Involving 65 229  Participants (click here)
Kausik K. Ray, MD,  MPhil, FACC, FESC; Sreenivasa Rao Kondapally Seshasai, MD, MPhil; Sebhat  Erqou, MD, MPhil, PhD; Peter Sever, PhD, FRCP, FESC; J. Wouter Jukema,  MD, PhD; Ian Ford, PhD; Naveed Sattar, FRCPath
Arch Intern  Med. 2010;170(12):1024-1031.
Background Statins  have been shown to reduce the risk of all-cause mortality among  individuals with clinical history of coronary heart disease. However, it  remains uncertain whether statins have similar mortality benefit in a  high-risk primary prevention setting. Notably, all systematic reviews to  date included trials that in part incorporated participants with prior  cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline. Our objective was to reliably  determine if statin therapy reduces all-cause mortality among  intermediate to high-risk individuals without a history of CVD.
Data  Sources Trials were identified through computerized literature searches  of MEDLINE and Cochrane databases (January 1970-May 2009) using terms  related to statins, clinical trials, and cardiovascular end points and  through bibliographies of retrieved studies.
Study  Selection Prospective, randomized controlled trials of statin therapy  performed in individuals free from CVD at baseline and that reported  details, or could supply data, on all-cause mortality.
Data  Extraction Relevant data including the number of patients  randomized, mean duration of follow-up, and the number of incident  deaths were obtained from the principal publication or by correspondence  with the investigators.
Data Synthesis Data  were combined from 11 studies and effect estimates were  pooled using a random-effects model meta-analysis, with heterogeneity  assessed with the I2 statistic. Data were available on 65 229 participants  followed for approximately 244 000 person-years, during which 2793  deaths occurred. The use of  statins in this high-risk primary prevention setting was not associated  with a statistically significant reduction (risk ratio,  0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.01) in the risk of all-cause  mortality. There was no statistical evidence of heterogeneity among  studies (I2 = 23%; 95% confidence interval, 0%-61% [P = .23]).
________________
Cholesterol  Lowering, Cardiovascular Diseases, and the Rosuvastatin-JUPITER  Controversy
A Critical Reappraisal (click here)
Michel  de Lorgeril, MD; Patricia Salen, BSc; John Abramson, MD; Sylvie Dodin,  MD; Tomohito Hamazaki, PhD; Willy Kostucki, MD; Harumi Okuyama, PhD;  Bruno Pavy, MD; Mikael Rabaeus, MD
Arch Intern Med.  2010;170(12):1032-1036.
Background Among the  recently reported cholesterol-lowering drug trials, the JUPITER (Justification  for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention) trial is unique: it  reports a substantial decrease in the risk of cardiovascular diseases  among patients without coronary heart disease and with normal or low  cholesterol levels.
Methods Careful review of  both results and methods used in the trial and comparison with expected  data.
Results The trial was flawed. It was discontinued  (according to prespecified rules) after fewer than 2 years of follow-up,  with no differences between the 2 groups on the most objective  criteria. Clinical data showed a major discrepancy between significant  reduction of nonfatal stroke and myocardial infarction but no effect on  mortality from stroke and myocardial infarction. Cardiovascular  mortality was surprisingly low compared with total mortality—between 5%  and 18%—whereas the expected rate would have been close to 40%. Finally,  there was a very low case-fatality rate of myocardial infarction, far  from the expected number of close to 50%. The possibility that bias  entered the trial is particularly concerning because of the strong commercial interest in the  study.
Conclusion The results of the trial do not support  the use of statin treatment for primary prevention of cardiovascular  diseases and raise troubling questions concerning the role of commercial  sponsors.
The title 'Credible Evidence' is a key statement to what this blog is all about primarily in the arena of Heart Disease, Cholesterol and Statins.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Statins, Pregnancy, Sepsis, Cancer, Heart Failure: a Critical Analysis:
Over the last few decades, the American pharmaceutical industry  (henceforth, "Big Pharma") has applied a very successful formula to  market fear and convert it into a multi-billion dollar industry. The  algorithm goes like this: 
But are they right? I think the evidence shows that very few people currently taking statin drugs are actually benefiting from them. Furthermore, many of them are actually worse off than they would have been had they never been on statins. Below, I will argue that any benefits incurred in combating heart disease are more than offset by increased susceptibility to fetal damage, toxic infection, and cancer.
...
Essentially, by taking a statin, you are shifting the odds on what you die of. Pay the money, suffer the side effects, and as a result you may end up dying of cancer or a runaway infection before you would have died of heart disease if you had never taken the drug in the first place.
...
Read the full article by Dr.Stephanie Seneff, a Principal Research Scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology here.
- find a substance whose concentration can be measured cheaply
- find a prevalent disease whose presence correlates with a high concentration of that substance
- find a drug that reduces the concentration of that substance
- advertise aggressively to the general public and medical professionals, claiming a miracle cure.
But are they right? I think the evidence shows that very few people currently taking statin drugs are actually benefiting from them. Furthermore, many of them are actually worse off than they would have been had they never been on statins. Below, I will argue that any benefits incurred in combating heart disease are more than offset by increased susceptibility to fetal damage, toxic infection, and cancer.
...
Essentially, by taking a statin, you are shifting the odds on what you die of. Pay the money, suffer the side effects, and as a result you may end up dying of cancer or a runaway infection before you would have died of heart disease if you had never taken the drug in the first place.
...
Read the full article by Dr.Stephanie Seneff, a Principal Research Scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
 
