High Cholesterol medicine

[lopburi3]

Believe ALT test is done after about 6 weeks of starting statin and if not bad probably every 6 months thereafter - it is not normally a monthly requirement and most people do not appear to have liver damage issues.  

[samuibeachcomber]

Many medics will tell you a high triglycerides count is worse than a high Cholesterol count.tryglycerides are fatty deposits in the liver that can be lowered by juicing raw pumpkin in a blender (100g) then adding water to make a smoothy .Take in the morning 20 mins. before food.Take for 3 months and then go back for a Cholesterol/trygliceride reading... Better than pill popping.imo.

Sent from my iris 750 using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[samuibeachcomber]

Believe ALT test is done after about 6 weeks of starting statin and if not bad probably every 6 months thereafter - it is not normally a monthly requirement and most people do not appear to have liver damage issues.  

I hope so.dont mind me I have a pathological dislike for pills and won't take any if I can find a natural way to fix my body.

Sent from my iris 750 using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[partington]

3 hours ago, Sheryl said:

Mooseman's quote  omits the fact that the report actually says "may be" rather than "are" and does not propose that stain use be stopped but rather that it be "revealuated". There is a crucial difference.  Also both it and the other article cited refer solely to mortality from cardiovascular disease, not morbidity nor mortality from other causes such as cerebrovascular disease.

 

What is the case, is that the overall benefit of statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs on mortality from cardiovascular disease on a population level remains unclear and the subject of debate and ongoing research, and certainly there was excessive hype about stains when they initially came out.

 

This does not mean that on an individual basis, there are not patients for whom statins are beneficial. It also does not mean that statins, or cholesterol lowering drugs in general, may not have benefits in terms of reducing morbidity (e.g.: disability related to pain form angina, stroke deficits etc) or in reducing mortality from other causes, as the studies to date have focused mainly on cardiovascular mortality. In addition, the studies to date may not have adequately accounted for the different types of lipid disorders; the net effects of stains might not be the same in people with herditary (familal) forms as for others.  All of this is still being researched.

 

"numerous studies of cholesterol lowering have failed to demonstrate a mortality benefit (specific to CVD mortality - my note) and the benefits of statins may have been overstated."  more accurately summarizes the current thinking. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4513492/

Again, that refers only to mortality, not morbidity/disability, and only to cardiovascular disease.

 

The research is ongoing and may eventually lead to changes in current medical recommendations. They have not changed as yet.

 

My personal advice to anyone with elevated triglycerides or LDL would certainly be to first try lifestyle modifications. With any disease, it is always prudent to limit medications to the unvaoidable. But we have to be realistic about patients' ability and willingness to undertake lifestyle modifications, and also recognize that there are some hereditary lipid disorders that will not respond to them. Not all dyslipedemias are the same.

 

If these fail to work, and if it were me (which fortunately it is not, knock on wood) I personally would first opt for non-statins such as niacin and if that failed, depending on the type of hyperlipedemia, possibly a fibrate drug. I say that both because of the side effects that some statin users experience and because of the uncertainty regarding stain's net effect on cardiovascular health....but that's just my personal take on matters. Those who have opted to take stains on the advice of their physicians and who are not experiencing intolerable side effects from them and otherwise doing well,  can certainly carry on at least for now until such a time as guidelines are revised.

 

And all of this needs to be viewed differently in cases of people with demonstrated cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease or special individual risk factors.

 

I have to argue the article cited doesn't reflect current thinking, but reflects one side of a current debate, and to me the most unconvincing side. It's presenting a partial case with some polemics  (The title is Cholesterol Confusion and the Statin Controversy ) and non-sequitur arguments (e.g "diabetes is a risk factor for heart disease but statins don't reduce mortality in diabetes!". Not really relevant if the bulk of diabetes risk is not exerted through raised cholesterol...)

 

The argument that mortality is the best way to assess beneficial effects of statins on coronary artery disease is also extremely flawed.

 

A recent meta-analysis  of nearly all the clinical trials that have been performed with statins carried out by the respected Cochrane Institute  suggested that statins would be beneficial even for those not considered at high risk for CHD, and this more reflective of current thinking because it includes much more data than the review above and represents statistical re-analysis of all existing data rather than comments on a partial account of the data.

 

The conclusions of this meta-analysis were left out of the review cited above for some reason although it was published before this review came out, and the new meta-analysis agreed with the beneficial effects cited in an earlier meta-analysis that this review actually does mention (but tries to diminish).

 

Taylor F, Huffman MD, Macedo AF, Moore TH, Burke M, Davey Smith G, Ward K, Ebrahim S. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 31;(1):CD004816. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004816.pub5. Review. PubMed PMID: 23440795.

MAIN RESULTS:

The latest search found four new trials and updated follow-up data on three trials included in the original review. Eighteen randomised control trials [...] were included [...]

 

All-cause mortality was reduced by statins (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94); as was combined fatal and non-fatal CVD RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.81), combined fatal and non-fatal CHD events RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.80) and combined fatal and non-fatal stroke (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89). Reduction of revascularisation rates (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.72) was also seen.

 

There was no evidence of any serious harm caused by statin prescription. Evidence available to date showed that primary prevention with statins is likely to be cost-effective and may improve patient quality of life. Recent findings from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists study using individual patient data meta-analysis indicate that these benefits are similar in people at lower (< 1% per year) risk of a major cardiovascular event.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Reductions in all-cause mortality, major vascular events and revascularisations were found with no excess of adverse events among people without evidence of CVD treated with statins.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23440795

 

[tropo]

36 minutes ago, samuibeachcomber said:

Many medics will tell you a high triglycerides count is worse than a high Cholesterol count.tryglycerides are fatty deposits in the liver that can be lowered by juicing raw pumpkin in a blender (100g) then adding water to make a smoothy .Take in the morning 20 mins. before food.Take for 3 months and then go back for a Cholesterol/trygliceride reading... Better than pill popping.imo.

Sent from my iris 750 using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

 

 

 

If your triglyceride levels are over 500mg/dl you can't even test total cholesterol because there's too much fat in the test tube.

 

Here's what 700 mg/dl + looks like:

 

 

[ravip]

On 2/18/2017 at 0:46 PM, CaptHaddock said:

Yes, but pharmaceutical doses are higher than vitamin doses.  Yes, niacin is an effective alternative to statins, more effective by some measures, cheap, and safe.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Cholesterol-Control-Without-Diet-Solution/dp/0966256867/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487402099&sr=1-1&keywords=niacin+cholesterol

Niacin also seems to have issues with higher doses >>> http://www.webmd.com/diet/supplement-guide-niacin#1

 

[tropo]

On 10/15/2016 at 9:55 AM, CaptHaddock said:

Do you exercise?  Exercise increases the risk of muscle pain from statins from 5% to 25% for moderate levels of exercise.  I have experienced this myself when I started to exercise after having taken Lipitor for 5 years without any problem.  The pain was enough to keep me awake at night.

 

I stopped statins 10 years ago and have been taking niacin since then, 1500 mg/day.  I buy a year's supply from endur.com for about $80.  Not any niacin will do however, so research is necessary.

 

 

How effectively did the niacin lower your cholesterol? How high were your triglycerides, LDL and HDL before you started taking it?

 

It's easy to get the right type of niacin in Thailand and it's cheap.

 

Fascino has 1000 x 50mg bottles of Nicotinic Acid. I can't remember the price, but it's cheap. Of course if you're after 1500 mg per day that would be 30 tablets a day and a container would only last you 33 days.

 

The nicotinic acid is the niacin which causes flushing, which is the correct one to use for lowering cholesterol:

 

http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/nicotinic-acid-for-high-cholesterol

 

Nicotinic acid is a B vitamin that is available without a prescription as a vitamin supplement (niacin). The nicotinic acid form of niacin lowers cholesterol, but other forms of niacin do not. These other forms that do not lower cholesterol include nicotinamide and inositol nicotinate (also called no-flush niacin).

[tropo]

7 minutes ago, ravip said:

Niacin also seems to have issues with higher doses >>> http://www.webmd.com/diet/supplement-guide-niacin#1

 

 

I think the highest I went to was 300 mg per day. It causes flushing, which I quite like. Apparently, this side effect subsides after taking it for awhile, but I never took it for long enough to find out. I'll have to start up again as my triglycerides are a bit high.

[Sheryl]

7 hours ago, Ace of Pop said:

My Doc says I must take a 10 mg Satins thing at night because I'm fat and lazy ,I like the truth,but don't know if it's the exercise I've started Or the Satins causing stiffer joints,the first 10 days were fine,any ideas ?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Joint pains/stiffness are indeed a side effect of stains (like most side efects, happens in some people and not in others). In my experience it is the main reason for people discontinuing statins.

 

You might want to ask your doctor about possibly switching to another drug such as Niaspan (niacin) or a fibrate.

 

Alternatively you might try some Coenzyme Q10 supplementation, there are some indications it may help with this side effect of statins  though evidence is unclear - see http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/expert-answers/coenzyme-q10/faq-20058176