Dana Blankenhorn

Rethinking Healthcare

Statins for everybody?

By Dana Blankenhorn | Feb 9, 2010 |

Statins like Zocor, Lipitor and Crestor have been around for decades. They lower your cholesterol level.

They have been around long enough that they are in the process of going generic. Zocor is simvastatin. I use it. Lipitor is atorvastatin. It will be a generic next year.

The generic name for Crestor is rosuvastatin. It is under patent through 2016, although a coalition of generic makers are now in court trying to bring that date up.

Until now you have been told to take statins only if your cholesterol level is high, roughly 200 milligrams per deciliter of blood. It is a simple test patients take every six months. (I get my next one next week.)

Now, thanks to a study called JUPITER, the FDA is approving use of Crestor even in normal middle-aged people, to prevent heart attacks and stroke.

JUPITER was a company-sponsored study — it stands for Justification for the Use of statins in Primary prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin. (Drug companies like snappy acronyms the way computer companies like words with Xs and Zs and Qs without Us in them.)

The fact this was a company-sponsored study, and the authors had many, many conflicts of interest, are troubling to critics, but the result was clear.

Eat all you want, we’ll make more.

JUPITER claimed heart attacks dropped 54%, strokes 48% and the need for operations opening up arteries by 46% among statin-eating old-timers, compared with those who didn’t take the meds. (By old-timers I mean men over 50 and women over 60.) Those are big numbers.

The FDA has been on the road to this decision for 14 months, since the results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

This is a big deal. The last major event in statin marketing came decades ago, when the makers of Lipitor got the bright idea of testing their drug at higher dosages. When they found it well-tolerated Lipitor zoomed past Zocor and became the number-one statin in the market.

But in a follow-up study Lipitor was also found to reduce heart attack risks, which led Astra-Zeneca to pony up for JUPITER.

There remain some big questions:

  1. When a study shows one statin has a specific effect, does that mean all statins might have it? The drugs are similar.
  2. Is the purpose of these studies to save lives or to just extend patent protection and profits? Funny how these studies come out when sales need a boost, when patent end dates are approaching.
  3. What about side effects? There are side effects from statins, usually (not always) minor, but if everyone is taking them won’t we soon find people with really bad side effects?
  4. What about the cost? Patients saved billions when Zocor became simvastatin. They are due to save more when Lipitor goes generic. Crestor is presently patented through 2016. Will vast new patient populations now be pushed toward a name brand drug?

Just as the statin industry has grown, so has the anti-statin industry. There have been studies that came out negative for statins. Some call the whole issue a con.

Personally I don’t think so. My dad had his first heart attack at 47, before statins were developed. When I got checked at age 45, I had a cholesterol count of 373. One of my neighbors died of a heart attack recently at 44, before he could get his cholesterol checked.

The danger is real.

But does everyone face it? The JUPITER study says yes. The FDA says yes. Which means your doctor will soon be told to say yes, too.

Are you going to say no?

 
Reply to Story

SmartPlanet TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via RSS

  •  
    1

    lewsorrells

    02/09/10 | Report as spam

    RE: Statins for everybody?

    One of the side-effects of Statins is leg muscle pain in the lower calfs. I have taken Statins for 8-10 years and I can not press on my leg below my calf without having pain. My doctor says that comes with Statins. Sometimes it is very painful at night.

  •  
    2

    cversich@...

    02/09/10 | Report as spam

    RE: Statins for everybody?

    And your medical credentials are? Or are you just on the drug companys' payroll?

  •  
    3

    claves1@...

    02/09/10 | Report as spam

    RE: Statins for everybody?

    The FDA approves? I didn't get tested. Who and where are those who get tested for new, no doubt, very expensive drugs. Will it be available in Canada, so I can afford to buy the drug there. How many years before I know I was saved?

  •  
    4

    DanaBlankenhorn

    02/09/10 | Report as spam

    Side Effects

    The links are to claims that statins cause mental dysfunction. Leg pain is one I have heard about, but you might want a second opinion before chalking it up to statin use.

  •  
    5

    DanaBlankenhorn

    02/09/10 | Report as spam

    My credentials

    I have been a business journalist since 1978 and was repeating what the FDA and others have said, as well as linking to the originals where I found them.

    MSJ Northwestern 1978 and BA Rice 1977, though, if you must know.

  •  
    6

    DanaBlankenhorn

    02/09/10 | Report as spam

    claves1@.

    You have some good questions that should be directed to your doctor. I assume Crestor is available in Canada.

  •  
    7

    dfmd@...

    02/09/10 | Report as spam

    RE: Statins for everybody?

    Actually, good old fish oil works better than statins.
    God holds the patent on fish oil so, sorry, no big ad campaigns.

    Those people on statins who get leg cramps are at higher risk of
    heart attacks.
    They have mitochondrial dysfunction.
    They disappear from the statin group but obviously not from the
    control group.
    How convenient that the pesky sickies are not counted in the statin
    group.
    Jupiter is controversial. Try reading the Lancet responses to the
    study

    80% of Cholesterol is made from carbs.
    Did your doctor tell you that?
    You appear obese in your picture, consider weight loss.

  •  
    8

    otherhalf@...

    02/10/10 | Report as spam

    Dangerous

    We've reached a very dangerous point - according to the pharmas everyone is ill - There's lot of money at stake here.
    Long term studies (not backed by the drug pushing companies) show that LOW CHOLESTEROL LEVELS IN MEN OVER 50 EQUALS A HIGHER MORBIDITY RATE.

    Check out the Framingham study which has been running since the 1940s : 'There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years [of the study] and mortality over the following 18 years.'

    [quote]
    The dangers of a low cholesterol level were highlighted by a major long-term study of men living in Honolulu: 'Our data accord with previous findings of increased mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol, and show that long-term persistence of low cholesterol concentration actually increases the risk of death.'

    So, what's going on - save on pension payments if they kill us oldies off?

    Whats more, the whole cholesterol hype is based on flawed reserch by Ancel Keys and his Seven Countries Trial.
    Trials were carried out in over 20 countries but the majority didn't fit his purpose he just cherry picked the ones that gave him the results he wanted.

    Regarding the CRESTOR trial, it was ended early which to my mind makes it a complete crock and according to reports one very important piece of data was omitted from the published results
    - Everyone in the trial who was taking Crestor and had a heart attack, died - so if this is true there's no 50/50 chance - you're dead.

    Seems that in all statin trials by the companies themselves is to be taken with a pinch of salt - data manipulation springs anyone?.

    ( oh, sorry, avoid the pinch of salt - not good for you)

  •  
    9

    DanaBlankenhorn

    02/10/10 | Report as spam

    dfmd@

    I agree that JUPITER is controversial, but I doubt the FDA would have made its decision if the study weren't done scientifically.

    Fish oil is good, but fish oil tablets, by themselves, do not do as much good as you think. This is according to scientific studies.

    I don't know that 80% of cholesterol comes from carbs. Is there a scientific study on that?

  •  
    10

    DanaBlankenhorn

    02/10/10 | Report as spam

    otherhalf@...

    Paranoia is unhealthy. If you want to argue with a scientific study do science.

    Many trials are ended early because the results are unequivocal. I remember one ending early a few years ago which showed a combination of calcium channel blockers and ace inhibitors resulted in fewer deaths than the common Ace inhibitor and diuretic approach. That result was welcome here. I switched and got immediate improvements.

  •  
    11

    Paul123z

    02/11/10 | Report as spam

    RE: Statins for everybody?

    The Framingham study evidence underlying the ?lipid hypothesis? was never strong to start with. Since then a massive lipid lowering campaign has shown no effect on heart disease rates. While an elegant and seemingly intuitive hypothesis, more and more openly people are rightly questioning the wisdom of the cholesterol lowering campaign.

    Cholesterol is an essential component of every cell membrane and important for myriad physiologic functions. When Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, MD PhD looked at the medical literature he found something quite surprising had been documented there. On average people with higher cholesterol live longer. Cholesterol is a mediator in heart disease but blood cholesterol levels have next to no effect on heart disease rates again heart disease rates mostly unchanged since the advent of the massive cholesterol lowering campaign. Here is something else to consider, as any chemist will tell you, cholesterol is a single molecule. How then are there "good" and "bad" cholesterol molecules. It is at best scientifically imprecise and at worst a crass marketing ploy to talk about the levels of high and low denisty lipoprotein (say it again lipoprotein i.e. a protein - they are carrier proteins) as implying different cholesterol molecules. Then again the statin cholesterol lowering drug class alone is a 30 billion dollar a year industry. This latest attempt to expand cholesterol lowering "medication" to healthy individuals with normal cholesterol is both absurd and offensive.

    Paul Maher, MD MPH
    http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/

  •  
    12

    DanaBlankenhorn

    02/16/10 | Report as spam

    No offense, but...

    Dr. Maher is a salesman.The full name of his blog is The (Skeptic's)
    HealthJournalClub. It's filled with ads.

    He also links to work like "The Fluouride Deception."

    It's one thing to be a skeptic,l but Dr. Maher is a cynic. Not that
    there isn't room for them in science. We need them. But taking what
    they say as truth is usually a losing proposition.

The following tags are supported in Smartplanet comments:
<b></b> <i></i> <u></u> <pre></pre>

Leave a Reply

  1. Name: You are currently: a Guest |
advertisement

Quick Poll

advertisement

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a technology reporter since 1982, a business reporter since 1978, and a writer for as long as he can remember. His Schwab IRA has a few tech stocks in it, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials bought over 10 years ago. But the vast majority of his tiny fortune (emphasis on the word tiny) is invested in mutual funds. He presently writes for no one else but ZDNet, SmartPlanet and himself. But if you've got an opportunity let him know. If he takes the gig he"ll first add it to this disclosure page.
Rethinking Healthcare examines innovation in the health care industry covering topics such as electronic and personal health records, treatment, privacy, regulation and using information technology to manage and monitor chronic conditions.