FB-TW

Showing posts with label AFCAPS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AFCAPS. Show all posts

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Statins Do Not Save Lives - Smith

New Study Confirms Statins Do Not Save Lives
A 'new' study of statin medications has just been published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. I say new, but actually its a new manipulation of old data.

The researchers looked at eight previously conducted clinical trials done on statins. The population studied was elderly people without existing cardiovascular disease. After doing their calculations, it was concluded that statins did slightly reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke, but the use of statins did not reduce the risk of death from cardiovascular disease. There was also no reduction in the risk of death from all causes.

The bottom line is that it has once again been established that statins do not extend life expectancy for people without cardiovascular disease.

This is one of the key points that STATIN NATION exposes.  The video excerpt below provides a summary of this issue:



A Bit More Detail
Around 75% of all the people who take a statin, are taking it for  primary prevention. This means they do not have a heart problem but are taking the medication in the hope of preventing a heart problem in the future.  When it comes to primary prevention none of the largest clinical trials have been able to conclusively show any net benefit.

The AFCAPS (1), ASCOT (2), CARDS (3), PROSPER (4) and WOSCOPS (5) clinical trials all failed to show a statistically significant reduction in all cause mortality (deaths from all causes, not just heart disease related deaths).

All cause mortality data, of course, is the only true measure one can use to determine if a statin is going to extend life expectancy or not. Whilst some clinical trials of statins have shown a very slight reduction in heart disease, in primary prevention, this has always been countered by deaths from other causes. The net result is that people do not live any longer after taking a statin.

In 2010, a meta-analysis of 11statin trials was published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Professor Kausik Ray and colleagues concluded that statins provided no benefit in terms of deaths from all causes, when used for primary prevention (6). This analysis had the “cleanest” dataset of any analysis completed to date - the researchers were able to exclude patients with existing heart disease (known as secondary prevention) and only include data associated with primary prevention.
When we look at the use of statins for people who already have a diagnosed heart problem (the 25% of people, in secondary prevention) the picture becomes less clear cut. Some trials have found significant increases in life expectancy for these people, however, the trials have always been too short for us to assess the long-term impact of being on a statin.

Even if statins do provide a short-term benefit for those with a heart problem, it is debatable that this has anything to do with the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins. Quite simply, the amount of benefit does not match up with the degree of cholesterol-lowering. The potential beneficial affects of statins for people with heart disease is now widely recognised to be associated with a reduction in inflammation. And recent evidence suggests that this is mediated through an improvement in iron metabolism (7).

“Benefits Outweigh Risks” 
Any decision to take a medication should of course involve a clear understanding of the benefits balanced against the risks. Many authorities have repeatedly stated that the benefits of statins far outweigh the risks. Clearly, this is not correct.

First of all, as we have seen above, there is no net benefit for the 75% of people who take a statin in primary prevention. So, for these people, the choice should be abundantly clear, since they will only expose themselves to the significant adverse effects associated with statins.

Statins have been linked with more than 300 different adverse effects. The most common adverse effects include: depression, suicide, sleep disturbances, memory loss, sexual dysfunction, lung disease, muscle-related problems, cognitive loss, neuropathy, pancreatic dysfunction and liver dysfunction. More recent studies have also shown that statins cause type 2 diabetes and acute kidney injury.

In addition, many doctors are concerned about statins and a potential increase in the risk for cancer and heart failure. A recent study found that the long term use of statins doubles the risk of breast cancer in women.

The best estimates suggest that at around 20% of the people who take a statin will experience significant adverse effects. This needs to be considered when thinking about both primary and secondary prevention, since this 20% is a much greater number than the number of people who might benefit, even in secondary prevention.

References: 
1. Downs JR, et al. Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels: results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study. JAMA 1998; 279:1615-22.
2. Sever PS, et al. Prevention of coronary and stroke events with atorvastatin in hypertensive patients who have average or lower-than-average cholesterol concentrations, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Lipid Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003; 361:1149-1158.
3. Clhoun HM, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 diabetes in the Collaborative Atovastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS). Lancet 2004; 364:685-696.
4. Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 360:1623-1630.
5. Shepherd J, et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia (WOSCOPS). N Engl J Med 1995; 333:1301-1307.
6. Ray KK, et al. Statins and all-cause mortality in high-risk primary prevention: a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials involving 65,229 participants. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170:1024-31.
7. Zacharski, LR et al. The Statin–Iron Nexus: Anti-Inflammatory Intervention for Arterial Disease Prevention. American Journal of Public Health. Published online ahead of print February 14, 2013.
==============================================================================================================
Read the complete article here.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

New Documentary Exposes the Over-Prescription of Statins -Smith



New Documentary Exposes the Over-Prescription of Statins
An estimated 40 million people take a statin to lower their cholesterol levels. These are one of the most widely prescribed medications in history and, of course, one of the most profitable.

We are led to believe that the benefits associated with statins far outweigh any risks. However, when it comes to primary prevention (accounting for around 75 percent of all the people who take a statin), no clinical trial has been able to conclusively show any net benefit.

This is one of the issues discussed in the documentary film STATIN NATION: The Great Cholesterol Cover Up.


If we look at the history of primary prevention clinical trials involving statins, we find that none of the major trials were able to demonstrate a significant reduction in the number of deaths from all causes. The AFCAPS, ASCOT, CARDS, PROSPER and WOSCOPS clinical trials all failed to show a statistically significant reduction in all cause mortality.

This data for deaths from all causes is, of course, important because it is the only measure we can use to determine if the statin is going to extend life expectancy or not.

Whilst some statin clinical trials have shown a very slight reduction in cardiac events, this has always been counter-acted by deaths from other causes. The net result being that people did not live any longer after taking the statin.

In fact, a meta-analysis of primary prevention clinical trials published in 2001 suggested that statins increase mortality when taken over a ten year period for both men and women.

More recently, pharmaceutical companies and much of the world's media have been touting the results of the JUPITER trial. However, if we take a closer look at the data for this trial, we can see that the statin and the placebo group had exactly the same number of cardiovascular related deaths - a fact that is highlighted by Dr Malcolm Kendrick in the new documentary.

In addition, an article published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2010 questioned the validity of the data from the JUPITER trial and raised concerns about the role of the company sponsoring the trial. Another article published in the journal Cardiology in 2011 raised similar concerns.

In 2010, a meta-analysis of 11 statin trials was published in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Professor Kausik Ray and colleagues concluded that statins provided no benefit in terms of deaths from all causes. It is worth mentioning that this analysis had the 'cleanest' dataset of any analysis completed to date - the researchers were able to exclude patients with existing heart disease (secondary prevention) and only include data associated with primary prevention.

In 2011, the highly respected Cochrane Collaborative conducted a review of statin clinical trials. Based on this review, lead authors Dr Shah Ebrahim and Dr Fiona Taylor said that they could not recommend the use of statins for primary prevention. The absolute benefit was so small that it could have been down to chance, and even if it was a real benefit, 1000 people would have to be treated for one year to prevent one death.

Thus, even before we start to assess the risks associated with statins, we can see that there is no meaningful net benefit where primary prevention is concerned.

Adverse Effects

We are told that the adverse effects of statins are only experienced by a very small number of people. This is said with confidence despite the fact that many of the trials did not report the adverse effects at all. For example, in the Cochrane review, the researchers noted that eight of the 14 randomized controlled primary prevention trials of statins analyzed did not report on adverse events.

It is very difficult to obtain a realistic overall percentage for the rate of adverse effects, however, GreenMedInfo.com has compiled what is probably the most extensive database of published studies documenting statin adverse effects. This body of evidence shows that there are more than 300 documented adverse effects of statins. This document can be accessed here: Statin Toxicity Research.

In summary, it is clear from the clinical evidence that for at least 75 percent of people who are taking a statin, there is no net benefit; only a strong possibility of significant adverse effects.
In my next article, I will focus on the use of statins for people who already have a diagnosed heart problem.

REFERENCES


Hughes, S. Cochrane review stirs controversy over statins in primary prevention. TheHeart.org
JANUARY 20, 2011
http://www.theheart.org/article/1174743.do

Friday, August 12, 2011

Scientists sometimes shift the scientific goalposts

Dr. John Briffa

Scientists sometimes shift the scientific goalposts

It’s easy to believe that statins have dramatic life-saving properties. The reality is, however, that for the majority of people who take them, they don’t. In the biggest and best review published to date, statins were not found to reduce overall risk of death in individuals with no previous history of cardiovascular disease [1]. What this study shows is that for great majority of people who take statins, the chances of them saving their life are, essentially, nil (just so you know).

Of course, you wouldn’t expect everyone to take this finding lying down. A number of people responded to this study with letters to the journal in which it appeared, attempting to cast doubt on its findings. None of it amounted to much, but I thought I would focus on one response, which in my view demonstrates how some scientists and doctors attempt to shift the scientific goalposts to make their point and suit their ends.

The response came from Drs Gabriel Chodick and Varda Shalev [2]. The main thrust of their objections come in the form of three studies that were included in the review referred to above that they claim have ‘major limitations’. Here’s what they say about each of these studies:

“…their meta-analysis included 3 studies with major limitations: a significant decrement in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels over the study period in the placebo arm (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial [ALLHAT]), old age at therapy initiation (Pravastatin in Elderly Individuals at Risk of Vascular Disease [PROSPER] Study), and incomplete information on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels over the follow-up period (Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study [AFCAPS/TexCAPS]). All these studies showed negative results; their inclusion would have biased against finding a benefit to statin treatment.”

With regard to the first study, what Drs Chodick and Shalev seem to be saying is that the control group (the group treated with placebo rather than statin) saw natural reductions in cholesterol, so the benefits of taking a statin did not to show up. However, the impact that statins had on cholesterol levels relative to a control group is not important – the only important thing is the impact statins had on health (and, in particular, overall risk of death). This is also true for the last study highlighted by Drs Chodick and Shalev.

As regard the second study, it’s not clear why the advanced years of participants would be a barrier to determining the effectiveness of statins. Actually, the elderly are known to be at particularly high risk of cardiovascular disease, meaning that if anything, this population would, theoretically, be generally most likely to benefit from statin therapy.

In summary: none of Drs Chodick and Shalev’s objections hold any water at all. But they don’t stop there. Here’s the final paragraph from their letter.

“Also, randomized controlled trials are often characterized by limited follow-up periods. Therefore, all-cause mortality benefits may not be apparent in randomized controlled trials among a primary prevention population. It would be informative in this regard to take into account the results of large observational studies with longer follow-up periods to better capture the benefits of statins in primary prevention patients.”

What they’re saying here is that clinical trials don’t go on long enough to detect benefits. It’s better, in their mind, to revert to longer studies that are observational (also known as ‘epidemiological’) in nature. However, such studies look at associations between things, but can never be used to prove the benefits of statins. Only intervention studies can do this.

So, what the authors of this letter are effectively saying is that we should ignore the best evidence we have in favour of quite-useless epidemiological evidence.

One of the authors of this letter is, in fact, an epidemiologist, and really should know better. But then again, both of the authors work for a company that assists drug companies in, among other things, ‘reducing the time to market’ and the writing and submission of scientific articles for publication.

See here for more details. It’s a clear conflict of interest, of course, and perhaps goes some way to explain why they make apparently spurious objections to existing evidence and appear to be calling for an approach that can never really get to the truth.

References:
1. Ray KK, et al. Statins and all-cause mortality in high-risk primary prevention: a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials involving 65 229 participants. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1024-1031
2. Chodick G, et al. Statins and all-cause mortality in high-risk primary prevention: a second look at the results. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(22):2041-2
==================================================================================
Read the full article here.