In a previous post the skeptical cardiologist discussed his approach to a typical sixty-something male, Geo, who was “on the fence” about taking the statin drug his PCP had recommended (see here.)
After acquiring more information on his level of subclinical atherosclerosis (coronary calcium and vascular screening), and discussing the risks and benefits of statins for primary prevention, I wrote about his experience in using my recommended “compromise approach.”
This approach utilizes a low dose of rosuvastatin taken intermittently with the goal of minimizing any statin side effects, but obtaining some of the benefits of statin drugs on cardiovascular risk reduction.
It worked well for Geo; taking 5 mg rosuvastatin three times weekly lowered his LDL-C (bad cholesterol) by 50%, and he had absolutely no side effects when I reported on him 6 months after starting the drug.
However, when I stayed with Geo and his lovely wife, Wendy, over Thanksgiving in their Annapolis, Maryland house, Geo revealed that he had stopped taking his statin.
Like many patients, he was swayed by a news report suggesting an important “new study” that suggested there was no relationship between cholesterol and heart disease, and that statin drugs were dangerous and should be stopped.
At first I thought the story that he had read was the one I reported here which (appropriately) questions the benefit of statins for primary prevention in patients over the age of 75.
However, after a bit of searching, Geo told me the article that caused him to stop taking his statin was a UK Daily Mail one entitled:
‘No evidence’ having high levels of bad cholesterol causes heart disease, claim 17 physicians as they call on doctors to ‘abandon’ statins
The Daily Mail article says at one point
But the new study, based on data of around 1.3 million patients, suggests doling out statins as a main form of treatment for heart disease is of ‘doubtful benefit’.
Is this really a “new study” that contradicts the great body of evidence showing that statin treatment is safe and effective in preventing heart attacks and stroke in those at high risk for cardiovascular events?
In reality, this is an opinion piece published in a questionable journal* without any new research, and it is the opinion of a collection of well-known (approaching notorious) statin denialists, members of a cult-like organization called The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics.(THINCS).
Larry Husten, who writes highly informed cardiac journalism at Cardiobrief, gives a good summary of their methods in this description of the authors of an editorial attacking the results of the JUPITER trial:
Nevertheless, the association of the authors with a group like THINCS raises some troublesome questions because, in fact, THINCS members don’t just object to one trial (JUPITER), or just one drug (rosuvastatin), or just the use of statins for primary prevention. They raise objections about ALL cholesterol-lowering trials, ALL cholesterol-lowering drugs, and the use of statins in ALL populations. They constantly harp on the dangerous side effects of statins, and exploit any bit of evidence they can find to launch their attacks, always ignoring the considerable evidence that doesn’t support their views. So the Archives paper on JUPITER is not really part of the scientific process, since the authors have no interest in the give and take of medicine and science. Their only interest is to attack, at any point, and on any basis, anything related to mainstream science about cholesterol.
The lead and corresponding author, Uffe Ravnskov is the founder of THINCS and author of The Cholesterol Myths – Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease (2000), which is considered the bible of cholesterol contrarianism.
Ravnskov’s book has been severely criticized in Bob Carroll’s The Skeptic’s Dictionary, which outlines the distortions and deceptive techniques found in the cholesterol skeptics’ arguments.
“to reject the cholesterol connection and statins entirely is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In my opinion, THINCS is spreading misinformation that could lead patients to refuse treatment that might prolong their life or at least prevent heart attacks and strokes.”
Indeed, if they were able to convince a highly intelligent patient like Geo, with a science background who also had easy access to the advice of a forward thinking cardiologist to stop taking his statins, who knows how many thousands have been convinced to stop their medications.
So my best advice for Geo and all of you taking statins is the following:
- Make sure you really need to be on the drug after engaging in shared-decision making with your physician and learning all you can about your personal risk of cardiovascular disease, the benefits of statins for you, and the potential side effects.
- Once you’ve made a decision based on good information and physician recommendation, try to ignore the latest headlines or internet stories that imply some new and striking information that impacts your health-most of these are unimportant.
The evidence for the benefit of statins is based on a deep body of scientific work, which will not be changed by any one new study. There is a very strong consensus amongst scientists who are actively working in the field of atherosclerosis, and amongst physicians who are actively caring for patients, that statins are very beneficial and safe. This consensus is similar to the consensus about the value of vaccines.
Science moves incrementally, and new studies inform those with open minds. The studies in this area that have been most significant in the last few years have actually strengthened the concept that drugs which lower LDL-C without causing other issues lower cardiovascular risk (see here on PCSK9 inhibitors and here on ezetimibe.)
N.B. *The Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology”is an open access journal, many of which are predatory. Article are solicited and the authors pay to have their work published. For the article in question, the Western Vascular Institute payed the fee. It’s not clear that there is any peer-review process involved.
Some authors have suggested predatory journals are “the biggest threat to science since the inquisition”and I am very worried about the explosive growth in these very weak journals which exist solely to make money.
I realize that writing this piece will engender the wrath of many so before you leave comments impugning my integrity let me reiterate that I receive absolutely nothing from BIG PHARMA. In fact, by writing appropriate prescriptions for statin drugs I reduce my income as my compliant patients avoid hospital and office visits and all kinds of procedures for heart attacks and strokes!