Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

crestor (statin) cuts heart disease in half in healthy people!

johnyq

Active member
A large study of individuals with normal or low cholesterol levels were put on crestor. A reduction in heart disease at 50% was seen, and death by any cause by 20%.


This was funded by crestor's parent company, and we don't know the long term effects of having extremely low cholesterol. Still surprising and interesting results.

Statins May Help Already Low Cholesterol Levels

A large research study released Sunday at the American Heart Association meeting in New Orleans is rocking the cardiology world. It suggests that even people with normal or low cholesterol levels can benefit from a cholesterol-lowering drug known as a statin.
Health Care

Certain people with normal cholesterol levels may benefit greatly from taking a statin drug, according to a new study released Sunday at the American Heart Association meeting in New Orleans.

Statin drugs are used by millions of people to reduce elevated cholesterol levels. The drugs lower the risk of heart attacks, strokes and other life-threatening events.

Now the new study shows that men and women who have normal cholesterol levels but signs of inflammation in the blood vessels can cut the risk of heart attack or stroke in half.

The data analysis, detailed in an online version of the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that 20 milligrams of Crestor, taken daily, reduced the incidence of heart attack, stroke, bypass surgery, heart pain and cardiovascular death by about half. It also reduced the number of deaths by any cause by 20 percent.

The study is already dividing the cardiology community. Some experts say the study is so convincing that cardiologists should begin testing people for signs of inflammation and, when present, begin treating them with a statin — even though the total cholesterol level is normal or even low.

But other experts are concerned that the results will be used to justify unneeded medical care.

The test for inflammation used in the study is called "hsCRP." The "hs" stands for "high-sensitivity." "CRP" is "C-reactive protein" — a protein that is found in greater quantities in the blood when there's inflammation of the vessels around the heart and other parts of the body.

A Worldwide Study

Heart researchers from 26 countries tested the drug Crestor (generic name: rosuvastatin) in 8,901 men and women with normal cholesterol levels, high hsCRP levels, and no history of heart disease. Their average age was 66.

A similar group of 8,901 people took placebos.

"When I, as a cardiologist, prescribe statins to patients with high cholesterol, I do so because I believe they'll lower the risk of a heart attack or stroke by about 20 or 25 percent," says cardiologist Paul Ridker of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, who headed the study.

"What's so remarkable in these new data is that the risk reduction in these patients with high hsCRP is 45 to 50 percent — almost twice as effective," he said.

Milestone For Controversial Theory

Ridker has been working for years on the so-called "inflammation hypothesis." The idea is that high levels of CRP indicate an increased risk of heart disease, and that lowering CRP levels can decrease risk.

Ridker holds a "use patent" on CRP testing for heart disease risk. He says the patent hasn't affected his judgment and that the data speaks for itself.

The hypothesis builds on the established knowledge that a heart attack occurs when an inflamed plaque — a buildup of fat in the wall of an artery — bursts. A blood clot then forms. The clot blocks blood flow, and a heart attack or stroke ensues.

You only have to have one plaque for this to happen. That's how people with normal cholesterol levels and little buildup in their arteries can still have heart attacks.

So researchers wanted to study whether bringing down the inflammation would reduce the risk of a heart attack or stroke.

The study released Sunday was sponsored by Crestor manufacturer AstraZeneca. The results were better than Ridker expected.

"We had hoped to see perhaps a 10 or 15 percent risk reduction. That would have told us that the inflammation hypothesis did have meaning," he says. "The observation here of a 45 or 50 percent reduction is just like a gift — it's a clinical gift, it's a research gift, and we're very excited about it."

"That is a larger reduction in the things that we care the most about — morbidity and mortality — than we've ever seen in a statin trial," says Steven Nissen, who chairs the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic. "And it occurred very quickly, in only 1.9 years of average duration of treatment."

The trial was stopped partway through because an independent monitoring board judged the results to be strong enough already to prove that testing and treatment work. But the early halt to the study means there is no long term data on the safety and effectiveness of this approach.

Sidney Wolfe, with Public Citizen's Health Research Group, is concerned about studies showing an increase in the incidence of diabetes in people on statins. He's worried about the current study as well, which shows that diabetes increased from 2.4 percent in the placebo group to 3.0 percent in those taking Crestor.

In an editorial in the Journal, Mark Hlatky, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, also points out that the incidence of cardiovascular problems in people with normal cholesterol is low enough to begin with. Cutting that risk in half, he says, isn't as dramatic as it sounds.

There were 157 cardiac events among the 8,901 people in the placebo group, and 83 events in those who got Crestor, he observes.

Statins For The Healthy?

And then there's the larger question about giving drugs — for life — to otherwise healthy people.

"You're talking about 20 years of treatment," Hlatky says. "They are lowering cholesterol to levels that have not been seen in other studies, because people started low and they lowered them yet further. Is that safe for 20 years? We don't know."

It may be that people would have to take them even longer than 20 years. The study was done mainly in people who were in their 50s, 60s and 70s. But inflammation can show up decades earlier.

Other questions remain. Among them is whether Crestor is the only statin that has the effect seen in the study. It's possible that other, far cheaper statins — which have been shown to reduce CRP levels — would also work. Some are available as generics.

The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health, has a standing committee of outside experts who establish guidelines for the treatment of heart disease. The head of NHLBI, Elizabeth Nabel, says the panel will consider the new trial when issuing its next set of guidelines on who should get tested for heart disease, and how they should be treated.
Invalid Link Removed




The kind of money potentially on the table from this?
U.S. sales of Lipitor, the best selling drug in the history of the universe, fell 13% to $1.6 billion. Even though Lipitor’s patent is good for a few more years, patients are flocking to simvastatin, the generic version of Merck’s Zocor, a rival cholesterol drug. Foreign revenues softened the blow somewhat, as a weaker dollar combined with decent overseas sales. Worldwide, Lipitor revenues fell 1% to $3.1 billion.
 
how would someone with no apparent use for this be able to buy it out of pocket because insurance companies would not foot the funds.
 
Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

People that eat low cholesterol diets, are more likely to become irritable and aggressive, even studies with chimpanzees show that when they're not fed enough cholesterol they get violent.....

The whole cholesterol thing is a rip off.
 
Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

People that eat low cholesterol diets, are more likely to become irritable and aggressive, even studies with chimpanzees show that when they're not fed enough cholesterol they get violent.....

The whole cholesterol thing is a rip off.

There is a distinct difference though between a therapeutic cholesterol level, and hyper/hypo lipidemia. Family heredity is probably the worst risk factor of all in that regard. You can eat as good as you want, and your lipid profile/triglycerides will still be lit up like a christmas tree.

I see your concern (and it's valid for sure as some people are taken advantage of and probably don't need pharmacological intervention), but in all honesty, it's not a total rip off overall.

Some people NEED statin intervention to control and/or prevent potentially life threatening issues. (I.E. Coronary Artery Disease, Stroke, Myocardial Infarction.)
 
Anyone who falls for this carefully cooked up in house special might be interested in some property I have to sell down along gator alley here in Florida.

Here are some excerpts from Mike Adams aka The Health Ranger's comments on this.

" To really expand its profits, Big Pharma was going to have to do something revolutionary: They were going to have to figure out a way to sell drugs to people who weren't sick at all.
Or, put another way: They needed a way to sell drugs to healthy people."

"In fact, this USA Today article (Invalid Link Removed...) calculated that prescribing the statin drugs more widely in the USA would add $10 billion a year to the national debt.

Perhaps in an age where the Federal Reserve is secretly swindling the taxpayers for more than one trillion dollars, ten billion doesn't seem like much. But it comes out to $500,000 spent on these drugs for each life "saved" by statin drugs... and that's if you actually believe the study that was funded by AstraZeneca (...and you'd have to be more than a bit gullible to swallow that junk science in the first place).

What's "junk science" about the AstraZeneca study? For starters, the study was halted two years early because it was claimed the results were so positive for the control group that it would have been unethical to continue denying the same drugs to the placebo group.

Gee, who needs actual science anymore when you've got so much faith in the safety of drugs that you don't even need to actually complete the clinical trials? (Why even bother with the study at all?)

Apparently, modern drug trials only need to show a hint of early success in order to be halted and declared an outrageous success. But it's no coincidence that the halting of the Crestor trial just happened to take place before the statin drug side effects would begin to emerge in the control group.

By halting the study, you see, what AstraZeneca cleverly did was cut off any possibility of side effects becoming apparent. What kind of side effects? Muscle weakness, heart attacks, diabetes and death, to name just a few. In fact, the study already documents a skyrocketing percentage of those taking the statin drug suddenly being afflicted with diabetes, but they stopped the study before they could really figure out why, and all the pro-drug physicians pushing this junk science agenda are dismissing the diabetes results as irrelevant."

"Just out of curiosity, let's look at the evidence being touted by the proponents of this study, shall we? Depending on exactly how you crunch the numbers, the study shows that one heart "event" (like a heart attack, stroke or death) is avoided for every 80 people put on the drug.

That means 79 people have no benefit from the drug whatsoever! (If you believe the study, anyway.)

But 1 out of 80 is quite enough for the pro-drug pushers to proclaim statin drugs to be nothing less than a modern medical miracle. If it were given to enough people, we'd save a whole bunch of lives, we're told. And the $10 billion in government expenditures is worth it!

Conventional docs aren't very good at math, by the way. All the hype about this particular study proves it: If $500,000 worth of Crestor can save one life, might there be a less expensive way to save that same life?

Let's see... The amazing nutrient resveratrol could be given to the same number of people for a fraction of the cost: About $5,000 by my estimation. That's 1/100th the cost. B vitamins could also be provided at extremely low cost, and they are well known to prevent heart attacks and strokes. In fact, the list of nutritional supplements that could safely and cost effectively prevent heart attacks is quite staggering: Magnesium, omega-3 supplements, juniper berry extracts, aged garlic extracts, red yeast rice, CoQ10, cayenne pepper and many more."

He has even more to say in his response at:
Invalid Link Removed
 
First off, if you read the study you will see that the groups were not distributed evenly. OVer 51 more patients taking placebo had a family history of CHD and over 71 more patients had metabolic syndrome in the placebo group.

At the time the study was terminated, 75% of the participants were taking their study pills.

Which means, of course, that 25% weren’t taking their study pills. And we don’t really know how many of the deaths in the study group came from the 75% taking their meds or the 25% who weren’t because the data was evaluated using an intention-to-treat analysis.

Lastly, THEY TERMINATED THE STUDY!! Probably because they saw some positive results and they wanted to keep them there, rather then let the groups pontially even out. Also, those on crestor had an increased risk for Diabetes.

EVEN IN THE BEST LIGHT POSSIBLE, we find that a small group of unusual patients - those with low LDL-cholesterol AND high C-reactive protein - may slightly decrease their risk for all-cause mortality by taking a drug that costs them almost $1,300 per year and slightly increases their risk for developing diabetes. That’s the best spin possible given the data from this study
 
I'll have to read through that later. From what i did read, it's utterly ridiculous.
 
Back
Top