More Misinformation from the British Press - Smith

More Misinformation from the British Press

Friday, December 28, 2012 Justin Smith

 

Yesterday, an article was published on the front page of a national newspaper in the UK, claiming “proof that statins save millions” and “wonder pill halves heart attack deaths”.

The article was published in the Daily Express newspaper on 27 December 2012, written by Giles Sheldrick. I have formally complained to the editor about the gross inaccuracies the article contains.
The article is based on data published in a recent report from the British Heart Foundation (BHF). The title of this report is Coronary Heart Disease Statistics 2012.

The article in the Daily Express claims that the reduction in heart disease deaths / heart attacks is mostly due to cholesterol lowering statins.

The recent BHF publication (available here) does clearly show that deaths from heart disease have continued to fall, however, nowhere in this publication is there any data to support the claim that statins have played a significant part.

The BHF publication references only one study; a 2004 study referenced on pages 14 and 15 of the publication. This referenced study is freely available here:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/109/9/1101.long

It is absolutely clear from this study that the vast majority of the reduction in heart disease deaths was from the reduction in the number of people smoking and improvements in emergency treatments. It had very little to do with statin medications. In fact, if you look at Table 1 of this study, we can see that statins, at best, contributed less than one percent to the reduction in deaths.

The first line of the Daily Express article reads “THE use of statins has halved the number of deaths from heart attacks”. There is no data to support this statement anywhere in the BHF publication or the 2004 study referenced by the BHF.

There are a number of additional points to consider.

The graph below is from another publication from the British Heart Foundation (Coronary Heart Disease Statistics 2008, available here) . If we look at figure 1.4 from page 25, we can see that heart disease deaths have been reducing since the 1970s, but there is no significant change in the graph around 1995. This is important because statin medications first started to be widely prescribed in 1995. If statins were having a significant impact, we would of course expect to see a more dramatic reduction around 1995, but we do not. In fact, some age groups have seen a slowing down of the reduction since the widespread introduction of statins in 1995.

It is important to note that even if statins do very slightly reduce the risk of suffering a heart attack (typically less than one percent reduction in risk), at the same time, these medications increase the risk of dying from other serious diseases. This is particularly the case when statins are used for 'prevention'. All of the clinical trials, where statins have been used for 'prevention' have failed to show any increase in life expectancy. The potential very slight reduction in heart attack risk has always been off-set by an increase in deaths from other causes due to the statin.

Not to mention the fact that around 20 percent of people who take statins experience considerable adverse effects, which in many cases have ruined peoples' lives.
=====================================================================
Read the complete article here.

More Misleading Information and Propaganda from the British Heart Foundation

Good new article by Justin Smith author of "$29 billion reasons to lie about cholesterol"
===================================================
More Misleading Information and Propaganda from the British Heart Foundation

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 11:30AM


Here is the latest headline from the British Heart Foundation (BHF):

“Research by BHF-funded scientists has shown that when it comes to cholesterol, ‘lower seems to be better’ for protecting us against heart attacks... The researchers looked at the effects of increasing the dosage of statins, a medicine that reduces cholesterol. They showed that a bigger drop in cholesterol – from more intensive treatment with statins – cut risks even more.”

This refers to a study just released in the Lancet. This study, and the media hype that the BHF have created about it, is nothing more than an attempt to confuse and mislead people.

If you read the headlines and the summary report you could certainly be forgiven for thinking that statins are wonder drugs and cholesterol really is humanity’s nemesis. This study did indeed find a reduction in heart attacks associated with more intensive use of statin drugs. However, there are at least four major reasons why the results are misleading.

The first reason is that the reduction in risk quoted in the interpretation of the study refers to a reduction in LDL cholesterol that is not normally seen in real life. This exaggerates the perceived benefits.

The interpretation refers to reductions in LDL levels of 2-3 mmol/l. The authors state that this reduction in LDL cholesterol would reduce the risk of a vascular event (such as a heart attack) by 40-50 percent.

Well, LDL cholesterol is typically around 2-3 mmol/l anyway, so the suggestion that it could be reduced by 2-3 mmol/l is nonsense – most people would have to be clinically dead to achieve this drastic reduction. So, the suggested risk reduction is completely academic and for most people could never happen.

The second reason is that, as usual, relative percentages are used instead of absolute percentages. This problem is ubiquitous in statin clinical trials and I have commented on it many times before. The risk reductions of 40-50 percent are relative percentages, which can only mislead people. In real terms, the percentages come down to single digits or less.

The third reason is that, as usual, the issue of deaths from all causes is not addressed. Statins can reduce the risk of suffering a heart attack or other cardiovascular event, but at the same time, these drugs can also increase the risk of dying from other causes, and overall, there is usually no net benefit.

There is not much point in taking an expensive medication if the risk for one disease is reduced at the cost of increasing the risk for another disease within the same time period.

I called the BHF today and asked them for the data concerning deaths from all causes. The press office said they didn't know, but they did kindly send me the full report for the study.

In this trial, the risk of dying from any cause was reduced from 2.3 percent to 2.1 percent. So, in real terms, the benefit of more intensive statin use equates to a risk reduction of just 0.2 percent.

But even this meagre 0.2 percent risk reduction may not be experienced by real people who take statins. This issue relates to the fourth problem with this study.

The forth reason why the results are misleading is that the analysis did not distinguish between people at a lower risk for a heart attack and people at a higher risk.

Around 7 million people are taking statins in England alone, and in America it is estimated that more than 20 million people may be taking them. The vast majority of these people are taking statins for primary prevention. This means that they do not have cardiovascular disease but are given the medications in the hope of preventing future disease.

To date, there is no convincing evidence that statins provide any net benefit to people when they are taken for primary prevention - they do not reduce the overall death rate. This was the conclusion of the latest analysis in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

The analysis that the BHF are supporting includes data from higher risk groups - the results do not represent the majority of people who currently take a statin.