Study raises questions over wider use of statins

Related Topics

LONDON | Mon Jun 28, 2010 4:09pm EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - There is no evidence that prescribing cholesterol-lowering drugs known as statins to patients at risk of heart disease reduces their chances of premature death in the short term, scientists said on Monday.

The results of a study by British researchers call into question the expanded use of statins such as Pfizer's Lipitor and AstraZeneca's Crestor in patients who do not have heart disease but may develop it.

Statins are one of the most widely used drugs for the treatment and prevention of heart disease, both among people who already have it and among high-risk but healthy people. They are among the most successful drugs of all time and have been credited with preventing millions of heart attacks and strokes.

But in a meta-analysis -- a study which reviews all previous published scientific evidence on a specific area -- Professor Kausik Ray and colleagues from the University of Cambridge and Addenbrooke's Hospital found scant evidence that statins saved lives in the short term in groups without heart disease.

"There is little evidence that statins reduce the risk of dying from any cause in individuals without heart disease," they wrote in the study in Archives of Internal Medicine journal.

"This, along with harms caused by statins in some subgroups, have called into question the benefit of statins in primary prevention (prevention of the development of heart disease)."

Heart disease is the biggest killer of men and women in the rich world and is also a growing problem in developing nations.

SIDE EFFECTS

Although statins are widely seen as safe and effective drugs, a study published last month found that people taking them may have higher risks of liver dysfunction, kidney failure, muscle weakness and cataracts. Scientists have warned such side effects should be closely monitored.

In their analysis, the Cambridge team combined data from 11 studies involving 65,229 people. A total of 32,623 individuals were assigned to take statins and 32,606 individuals were assigned to take placebo.

Over an average of 3.7 years of follow-up, 2,793 participants died, including 1,447 on placebo and 1,346 on statins. The scientists said the small reduction in the statin group was not statistically significant.

While low-density lipoprotein (LDL), or "bad" cholesterol levels, were higher among those taking placebo than those taking statins (134 milligrams per deciliter versus 94 milligrams per deciliter), this had no effect on the risk of premature death.

The scientists said their results showed "the need for caution when extending the potential benefits of statins to a wider population."

Professor Peter Weissberg of the British Heart Foundation noted the findings but said they were only short-term.

"The people in these studies were followed for less than four years on average. Since heart and circulatory disease develops over many decades, it's reasonable to assume that we would see a significant improvement in mortality after a longer period of follow-up," he said in a statement.

He also said premature death was not the only consideration when seeking to prevent heart disease.

"Many studies have shown that statins prevent non-fatal heart attacks and strokes," he said. "Preventing serious ill health, such as heart failure resulting from a heart attack, or disability due to a stroke, is every bit as important as lengthening lives."

(Editing by David Holmes)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (5)
margaretwilde wrote:
Clearly, neither high cholesterol levels nor heart disease and heart attacks are caused by shortage of statins in the body. I therefore find the comment by Professor Peter Weissberg of the British Heart Foundation that “The people in these studies were followed for less than four years on average. Since heart and circulatory disease develops over many decades, it’s reasonable to assume that we would see a significant improvement in mortality after a longer period of follow-up,” extraordinary. – I do not consider it at all reasonable to make that assumption.

A completely free, completely safe way to lower high cholesterol, reduce heart disease and reduce risk of stroke and heart attack and benefit the health in countless other ways is seriously to cut down intake of salt and salty food. – No risk at all of adverse side-effects.

Professor Weissberg constantly bangs the drum for taking statins, a hugely expensive drug for the NHS to pay for and a mighty profitable prescription for the pharmaceutical industry. He should instead be banging the drum for lowering salt intake, and stressing its many health benefits.

Jun 28, 2010 6:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
VitaminD3Man wrote:
Hallelujah!

Finally the truth is out about statins, America’s most widely distributed snake oil!

And it’s most profitable as well.
This is the beginning of the end for this hugely overprescribed class of drugs.

The drug companies will do a gut check and retaliate with manipulated research which “proves” their efficacy.

Don’t buy it for a second as this damning report, generated by other doctors, scientists, and researchers, clearly explains they are of little or no benefit to the overwhelming majority of users.

But indications statins reduce the recurrence of prostate cancer in those already diagnosed?

Say what?

A heart disease medication serendipitously benefits cancer survivors?
Do these drug companies even know what they are doing?

Yes and no.

They certainly have made decabillions in profit by schmoozing hopeful physicians with twisted research findings.

Many informed people always questioned the wisdom of statin use and wondered out loud if there was some other reason for their ubiquitous use.

Now even the AMA’s own have confirmed it was all about profit.

Jun 29, 2010 10:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
klaustin wrote:
I am looking forward to reading more “long-term” reports about what Professor Peter Weissberg claimed. Hope they will convince us (paying customers) taking satins is good.

Jun 29, 2010 11:31am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.