No, you are not “sabotaging” your heart with statin drugs. Neither are you “wrecking” your heart.
But that title probably got your attention if you are taking a statin drug and thought that it was helping your heart.
This question is prominently displayed on the Health portion of a news website called Newsmax, that somehow interrupted my web surfing today. If you click on the banner, you will get to listen to the words of Dr. David Brownstein, “America’s most popular family physician.”
Dr. Brownstein, in my opinion, should more properly be termed “one of America’s most popular quacks, charlatans and purveyors of misinformation in order to market useless junk.”
What Brownstein says can be found on multiple similar sites across the internet which are promoting “alternative” or “natural” approaches to high cholesterol.
His claims can be summarized as follows:
- statin drugs do nothing to protect you from heart attacks
- statin drugs “weaken your heart,” muscles, cause fatigue and lower your sex drive, damage your kidneys and liver
- statin drugs prevent the formation of cholesterol which is essential for brain, sex hormone and vitamin D production
- 1/2 of people with heart attacks have normal cholesterol levels
- CHF is increasing in frequency and it is related to an increase in statins and consumption of sugar and refined carbohydrates
- Big pharma has perpetrated the biggest fraud in medical history on the American public by brainwashing doctors, beginning in medical school, to prescribe statin drugs
These claims resonate with patients who are reluctant to take medications and who feel that “natural” approaches to prevention and treatment are superior.
Brownstein uses a combination of alarmist rhetoric and pseudoscientific jargon that appeals to those seeking alternatives.
Let’s look at his claims.
Do Statins Prevent heart Attacks?
Statins unequivocally prevent heart attacks in patients who have had heart attacks or have evidence of advanced vascular disease due to atherosclerosis. This is called secondary prevention and there are almost no cardiologists/scientists with any credibility who dispute the value of statins in secondary prevention.
The only specific study that Brownstein cites is the ASCOT-LLA study, published in 2003 which looked at ten thousand patients with hypertension, no heart disease and low or normal cholesterol levels, half of whom got 10 mg of atorvastatin and half a placebo.
This was a primary prevention study and showed such a benefit of the atorvastatin on reducing heart attack and coronary deaths that the study was stopped early, at 3.3 years at which time 154 patients receiving placebo versus 100 receiving atorvastatin had had heart attacks or died from coronary disease.
This was a highly significant reduction in events. There are several ways to look at this data and present it to patients; Brownstein implies that “Big pharma” presented the most favorable way, which is that there was a 36% reduction in relative risk.
The absolute risk of an event in the atorvastatin group was 1.7% (2.7% in the placebo group), so the absolute risk reduction was from 2.7% down to 1.7% or 1%.
To help better understand the data, we can also look at the number needed to treat (NNT). The NNT is the inverse of the absolute risk reduction. So for the ASCOT trial, the absolute risk reduction was 1%. 1 divided by 1% is 100 — 100 people would need to be treated with atorvastatin (the generic of Lipitor) over the study period to prevent one heart attack. (For more discussion on the NNT check out this blog post and this paper on its limitations)
Understandably, Pfizer, the makers of atorvastatin, prominently displayed the 36% relative risk reduction in their direct to consumer marketing campaigns (featuring Dr.Robert Jarvik (proclaiming himself a doctor in direct to consumer videos), although he was never a licensed physician (see here for interesting discussion on the controversy that ensued)).
Until, the FDA compels them to do otherwise, big pharma will project their products in the most favorable light possible.
However, it is debatable whether presenting data to patients using absolute risk reductions or NNT info plus relative risk reductions results in better choices. As Mcalister has pointed out:
“For example, many British patients with atrial fibrillation who were likely to benefit from anticoagulant therapy because of their risk profiles and their similarity to the participants in randomized trials supporting the efficacy of warfarin declined warfarin therapy when presented with the data about their absolute risks and benefits.”
ASCOT really makes a strong case for taking a statin drug to prevent heart attacks, even in those with normal or low cholesterol levels, not the opposite, as Brownstein has implied.
Do Statin Drugs “Weaken” The Heart Muscle Or Cause Heart Failure?
After criticizing the now infamous “Seven Nations Study” of Ancel Keys, which found high fat consumption in countries with high rates of heart attacks, Brownstein trots out the weakest imaginable argument for statins causing heart failure: heart failure has increased in the last decades, statin use has increased, therefore statins are causing heart failure.
Correlation does not equal causation!
There is no compelling evidence that statins cause heart failure or weaken heart muscle.
In fact, a recent review of heart failure and statins concluded that statins, while not reducing mortality in heart failure, do have favorable effects on reducing the rate of hospitalization for heart failure and increasing the strength of the heart muscle.
Much of the misinformation about heart failure and statins arises from sites like Life Extension, which promotes sales of its own preferred brand of vitamin CoQ10, ubiquinol. (According to their website, though, this is for altruistic reasons: “We at the Life Extension Foundation take a different view. Keeping our members in a youthful state of longevity is the most efficient way of maintaining the revenue stream we need to fund our scientific research projects. We had no problem reducing our margins to provide members with the clearly superior ubiquinol form of CoQ10.”)
As is typical for this slick organization (see my previous post here), the writing has the veneer of science but is all pseudoscience with references that are outdated, irrelevant or meaningless.
Statin Side Effects
Misinformation and Scare Tactics on the Internet
Brownstone is not the only purveyor of dangerous misinformation on Newsmax’s Health website. There seems to be a concerted effort to promote quacks and charlatans and any information on this website is suspect.
A good rule of thumb if you are searching for credible health information on the web:
Avoid sites that use scare tactics and inflammatory rhetoric to induce you to stop your prescription medication and buy a health newsletter or nutraceutical.
By the way, Big Pharma has not brainwashed me.
I have no ties to industry.
I stopped taking any pharma food or money years ago.
Listen all y’all, it’s not a sabotage!
-Boyishly yours,
ACP
11 thoughts on “Are You Sabotaging Your Heart With Statin Drugs?”
What is the validity of this other 5 claims?
I cannot tolerate statins and I have been prescribed PCKS9. Your thoughts on this relatively new drug?
I wrote about the PCsK9 inhibitors in my wrap up of 2017. The data is very strong for their effectiveness and safety. My experience in patients has been very positive-few side effects with good LDL lowering. Only issue is cost and all the hoops we have to go through to get patients approved.Here is what I wrote in 2017
As a practicing cardiologist I’ve been struggling with how to utilize the two available PCSK9 inhibitors (Amgen’s Repatha (evolocumab) and Sanofi’s Praluent (alirocumab) in my clinical practice. I would love to use them for my high risk statin-intolerant patients but the high cost and limited insurance coverage has resulted in only a few of my patients utilizing it.
The lack of outcomes data has also restrained my and most insurance companies enthusiasm for using them.
The opening session at this year’s American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions in DC I think has significantly changed the calculus in this area with two presentations: the first showing Amgen’s “fully humanized” evolocumab significantly lowers CV risk in high risk patients on optimal statin therapy and the second showing that Pfizer’s “mostly humanized” bococizumab loses efficacy over time and will likely never reach the market.
The FOURIER study of evolocumab randomized 27, 564 high risk but stable patients who had LDL>70 with prior MI, prior stroke or symptomatic PAD to receive evolocumab or placebo on top of optimized lipid therapy. 69% of patients were recieving high intensity statin therapy and the baseline LDL was 92. LDL was reduced by 59% to average level of 30 in the treated patients. The reduction in LDL was consistent through the duration of the study.
IN 1/4 of the patients LDL was <20! These are unprecedented low levels of LDL.
Active treatment significantly reduced the primary endpoint by 15% and reduced the secondary endpoinf of CV death, MI, stroke by 20%. absolute difference 2% by 3 years.
There was no difference in adverse effects between placebo and Evo.
The next presentation featured data using Pfizer’s candidate in the PCSK9 wars and the acronym SPIRE (Studies of PCSK9 Inhibition and the Reduction in vascular Events (SPIRE) Bococizumab Development Program).
Paul Ridker presented the outcomes data for bococizumab which was actually similar to evolocumab data but given the declining efficacy and development of antibodies to the Pfizer drug over time these were very disappointing for Pfizer and I would presume their drug will never reach the market.
How will these results impact clinical practice?
I am now more inclined to prescribe evolocumab to my very high risk patients who have not achieved LDL< 70. I’m willing to do what I can to jump through insurance company hoops and try to make these drugs affordable to my patients.
I am less worried about extremely low LDL levels and have more faith in the LDL hypothesis: the lower the LDL the lower the risk of CV disease.
Cost is still going to be an issue for most of my patients I fear and the need for shared decision-making becomes even more important.
My question is about this recent “lectin avoidance diet” fad as promoted by Dr. Steven Gundry and others. He claims that lectins in plant based food, especially in beans and grains, are the cause of most diseases. But, I have read that cooking destroys essentially all lectins in these foods. Gundry also promotes heavily his line of supplements. Do I need to worry about lectins?
Thank you,
Edmond Green
I’ve written about Gundry and his supplements on my post about the #1 red flag of quackery. None of his products have any scientific proof of efficacy. In research for another post I’m working on I viewed his video on lectins and his “plant avoidance diet”. It sounds like completely fabricated quackery to me.
There’s controversy swirling around statins – still. Makes me awfully uneasy.
What do you make of this indictment?
http://jcbmr.com/index.php/jcbmr/article/view/11/26
One could also say there is controversy swirling around vaccines but the majority of scientists/physicians support the use of vaccines and reject claims of an association with autism. Similarly, with statins, the vast majority of unbiased scientists/physicians who look at the statin data, particularly for secondary prevention of CAD believe they are very beneficial.
The article you reference is by Lorgeril, who I respect as the guy behind the LYon Heart Study.I haven’t had a chance to look at it in detail but I don’t think it is going to change my previously heavily researched and personal experience-based recommendations on statin usage.
I’m on atorvastatin because of a very high Agatston score. All other risk factors are minimal.
It was disturbing, therefore, to read this article in this peer-reviewed journal.
Just how can one conflicted patient make a rational decision??
What do you think of this?:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1586/17512433.2015.1011125
This paper has Peter Langsjoen as an author. He is a well known statin vilifier. He seems to write a lot of papers all with the same them-statins are bad and everyone should be taking co-enzyme Q10. Why? Because he and his father did a lot of studies with CQ10. I’ve looked at detail in his writings when researching benefits of co-Q10 and I think the one valid study suggests that patients with heart failure may do worse with statins and may benefit from co-Q10. This needs further validation. If you are taking the atorvastatin for a high calcium score that puts you at >75th% for your age and gender and you don’t have heart failure I would not worry about this man’s writings.
Certainly, all the alternative and holistic web sites that promote “natural” cures for atherosclerosis and sell large amounts of CoQ10 or ubiquonol would like you to believe but they are deceptive.
Can you resolve for me what appears to be a real statin issue according to these articles?
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/840884
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/845232
I do tell my patients about the increased risk of development of diabetes with high dose statin therapy. Previously, I had been quoting a 9% increased risk. It definitely has to be factored into overall decision making.
The author of the first study was quoting as saying
“Discussing the take-home message for prescribers seeking to balance the risk for diabetes with the benefits of statin therapy, Dr Laasko reiterated that individuals with a history of cardiovascular events and high LDL cholesterol “should definitely take statins.””
This is because the benefits in reducing cardiovascular events in higher risk individuals is very clear even with a higher risk of diabetes.