Gerry Gajadharsingh writes
“With thanks to one of my osteopathic colleagues, Mojo, for passing on this research to me. I remember looking at some of the original research 10+ years ago, when it was clear that the absolute risk reduction (ARR) of taking statins in relation to cardiovascular risk and all-cause mortality, was minimal. Much of the media picks up on relative risk reduction (RRR), as it gives much better headline figures.
The meta-analysis included twenty-one randomized controlled trials that compared statin drug treatment to placebo or usual care, reported absolute changes in LDL-C, and had a duration of at least two years. The main finding was that the relative risk reductions in all-cause mortality, heart attack and stroke, were misleading compared to the absolute risk reductions, and this may lead clinicians and patients to believe that statins are more effective than they may be in some cases.
The relative risk reductions (RRR) were shown to be 9% (all-cause mortality), 29% (heart attack), and 14% (stroke). These sound impressive on the surface, but looking at absolute risk reduction (ARR) paints a different picture. The absolute reductions were 0.8%, 1.3%, and 0.4%, respectively.
Furthermore, whilst statins tend to lower LDL (low density lipotroteins, the bad cholesterol), in many people it is suspected that their benefits are often cholesterol independent, the so called “pleiotropic” benefits of statins involve improving or restoring endothelial function, decreasing oxidative stress and vascular inflammation, enhancing the stability of atherosclerotic plaques and inhibiting the thrombogenic response.
If the risk/benefit ratio suggests that a person should take statins, I tend to recommend a product called Mirachol 3 Gold, which contains Monacholin K at 3mg (so not a high dose) from Red Rice Yeast extract, but with the addition of CoQ10 and Boswelia a herb. On the data I have seen from patients, it can help lower cholesterol. Monacholin K is the active ingredient, is the same active compound contained in Lovastatin (a common statin), but at a much lower dose. As with all prescription drugs, patients should talk to their prescriber, normally their GP, if they’re thinking of using a substitute for their normal prescription medication.”
For further details please go to
https://www.thehealthequation.co.uk/nutritional-supplements-solgar-nutrilink-biogena/
A meta-analysis published recently in JAMA Internal Medicine, published by the American Medical association, raises questions about the efficacy of statin drugs with regard to reducing heart attack, stroke, and all-cause mortality. The findings are important because they may have implications for affecting shared decision-making between doctors and patients when it comes to using statin drugs to lower serum cholesterol levels.
The meta-analysis included twenty-one randomized controlled trials that compared statin drug treatment to placebo or usual care, reported absolute changes in LDL-C, and had a duration of at least two years. The main finding was that the relative risk reductions in all-cause mortality, heart attack and stroke, were misleading compared to the absolute risk reductions, and this may lead clinicians and patients to believe that statins are more effective than they may be in some cases.
The relative risk reductions (RRR) were shown to be 9% (all-cause mortality), 29% (heart attack), and 14% (stroke). These sound impressive on the surface, but looking at absolute risk reduction (ARR) paints a different picture. The absolute reductions were 0.8%, 1.3%, and 0.4%, respectively. The paper’s authors wrote:
“Reporting the reduction in cardiovascular outcomes as RRR without reporting the corresponding absolute risk reduction (ARR) has the potential to inflate the clinical importance of an intervention and may exaggerate trivial associations.”
Related research has shown that reductions in LDL-C correspond poorly to reductions in CVS risk, and it is increasingly believed that the beneficial effects of statins come from pleiotropic actions rather than the lowering of LDL-C. The authors of the meta-analysis noted, “…when considering the ARR of statins, the benefits are quite modest, and most trial participants who took statins derived no clinical benefit.”
According to the authors’ calculations from the pooled trials included in the meta-analysis, 77 individuals would need to be taking a statin for approximately 4.4 years to prevent one heart attack. Depending on an individual patient’s situation, statin therapy may be appropriate, but the risks and benefits should be clearly communicated so that an informed decision can be made, particularly in light of the undesirable side-effects these drugs may induce in some patients.