Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / December 2006
dueling studies on statins
|
|
Thread rating:  |
TC - 28 Nov 2006 21:17 GMT http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/11/28/hscout536300.html
Statins Cut Risk of Heart Attack, Stroke in Those Without Heart Disease 11.28.06, 12:00 AM ET
TUESDAY, Nov. 28 (HealthDay News) -- There are clear medical benefits for prescribing cholesterol-reducing statin drugs for people who don't have cardiovascular disease but are at moderate risk of heart attack, stroke or other events, new research indicates. An analysis of studies that included more than 48,000 people supports current guidelines about who should get statins, said study lead author Dr. Niteesh K. Choudhry, an associate physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital, in Boston.
Those guidelines state that "those at highest risk even without known cardiovascular disease should get statins," Choudhry said. "They suggest that people at moderate risk, they may also benefit."
There are clear benefits for people at moderate risk due to such conditions as diabetes or high blood pressure, in addition to high blood cholesterol, the analysis found. The incidence of major cardiovascular events such as heart attack was 29 percent lower for those who took a statin rather than a placebo, an inactive substance, and a 14 percent reduction in strokes over an average of 4.3 years.
Statin therapy did not reduce the death rate in the trials, "likely because of the relatively low risk of mortality in this patient population and insufficient length of follow-up," the report said.
The study was published in the Nov. 27 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.
The cost of statin treatment must also be considered against the benefits, Choudhry said. If the 23 million Americans at moderate risk of cardiovascular disease were treated for 4.3 years, an estimated 85,800 strokes and 383,000 major coronary events would be prevented -- but the cost would be at least $40 billion.
"Whether those at moderate risk should be getting statins is a matter of cost-benefit analysis, whether the bang for the buck is worth it," he said.
Dr. Christopher P. Cannon, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women's who was not involved with the study, has no doubts that the benefits of statin therapy outweigh the costs.
"The study is very important news for tens of millions of people here in the United States," Cannon said. "It provides very important evidence supporting the use of statins to lower cholesterol in people at moderate risk."
The study shows that a person would have to be treated with a statin for 4.3 years to prevent one major coronary event, Cannon noted. "That cost is well within the realm of standard medical practice," he said.
Alternative cholesterol-lowering measures, such as better diet, do not offer the same clear benefits as statin treatment, Cannon said. "People take a look at the box of oatmeal in the morning and say, 'Not today,' " he said.
And the price of statin therapy is coming down, Cannon said. "Fortunately, statins are available as generics," he said. "That dramatically reduces the cost of implementing the strategy. Three statins are now available generically."
The analysis also showed statistically significant benefits of statin therapy even for people at relatively low risk, Choudhry added. "But the amount of benefit is small," he said. "The question is, is it worth it?"
***********
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/11/27/statins-heart.html
Few benefits of statins for people without heart disease: review Last Updated: Monday, November 27, 2006 | 4:21 PM ET CBC News Cholesterol-lowering drugs slightly reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in people with no history of the disease but their overall risk of death does not fall, a Canadian-led review concludes.
Statins are a bestselling family of drugs that lower levels of artery-clogging "bad" cholesterol, called LDL or low-density lipoprotein. The medications are thought to help ward off heart attacks and strokes.
In Monday's issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, Dr. Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan of the University of Toronto and colleagues analyzed the results of seven previously published clinical trials on the benefits of statins.
The team concluded statins help lower the risk of heart attacks and strokes in people at risk from heart disease or high cholesterol. But for otherwise healthy adults, the benefits are limited.
On average, an adult has a nearly six per cent chance of having a heart attack or stroke over a 4.3-year period. Statins reduced that risk to four per cent, the researchers said.
"Therefore, 60 patients would need to be treated for an average of 4.3 years to prevent one major coronary event," Thavendiranathan and colleagues wrote.
To prevent one stroke, 268 people would need to take statins, and to prevent one nonfatal heart attack, 61 would need to take the pills.
Rates of death from cardiovascular disease and other causes were about the same in the statin and control groups.
Statins are expensive and other therapies may work to reduce the risk, the researchers said in calling for more research to clarify the cost-effectiveness of statin therapy for people at intermediate risk.
Drug-free ways such as improving your diet and exercising more also lower blood cholesterol levels, studies show.
**********
Forbes vs CBC News. Black and white. Yin and Yang.
TC
TC - 28 Nov 2006 21:25 GMT dueling spin is a better description. Interesting how forbes choses to spin it to the benefit of pharma. Proof that the popular media is being influenced by advertising dollars?
TC
> http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/11/28/hscout536300.html > [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > > TC coonskin@amestwp.com - 28 Nov 2006 21:49 GMT "dueling spin is a better description. Interesting how forbes choses to spin it to the benefit of pharma. Proof that the popular media is being influenced by advertising dollars?"
And just yesterday you were touting a NY Times article about questioning the ADA. What can we learn about that? Need we bother to see how many items the BBC presents that could be seen as pro drug industry because some drug was found to havepositive benefit? And when Forbes no doubt published on the problems Merc and others had with some drugs which cast some doubt on them we learn exactly what? If there is "proof" of anything it is about the messenger and a spinning head.
TC - 28 Nov 2006 21:57 GMT > "dueling spin is a better description. Interesting how forbes choses to > spin it to the benefit of pharma. Proof that the popular media is being [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > some doubt on them we learn exactly what? If there is "proof" of > anything it is about the messenger and a spinning head. I did not present it a definitive proof. Just a hint at proof. More fodder to consider. Another interesting example of an American media entity leaning towards pharma and possibly being a tad less objective than one would think they ought to be.
Read my other post about "Dr" Cannon. He is a great example of someone who you would think would be objective (ie. a "doctor") who appears to be more of a marketer or a cheerleader than an objective and independent medical professional.
TC
coonskin@amestwp.com - 28 Nov 2006 23:20 GMT "I did not present it a definitive proof. Just a hint at proof. More fodder to consider. Another interesting example of an American media entity leaning towards pharma and possibly being a tad less objective than one would think they ought to be."
Not only do we find head spinning but backpeddling as well, well, this is the age of multitasking.
"Read my other post about "Dr" Cannon. He is a great example of someone who you would think would be objective (ie. a "doctor") who appears to be more of a marketer or a cheerleader than an objective and independent medical professional."
No thanks.
TC - 29 Nov 2006 00:00 GMT > "I did not present it a definitive proof. Just a hint at proof. More > fodder to consider. Another interesting example of an American media [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not only do we find head spinning but backpeddling as well, well, this > is the age of multitasking. That is not backpeddling. That is presenting the facts in a better light than they actually deserve. Or being diplomatic. Or not having to overstate what is blatantly obvious.
> "Read my other post about "Dr" Cannon. He is a great example of someone > who you would think would be objective (ie. a "doctor") who appears to > be more of a marketer or a cheerleader than an objective and independent > medical professional." > > No thanks. I'm sure you did read it. And you have nothing to say because it is absolutely damning to arguments you have presented before in this ng. When you have no legs to stand on, the best policy is to shut up and not comment. Good for you, you are learning something here.
TC
coonskin@amestwp.com - 29 Nov 2006 01:15 GMT > Not only do we find head spinning but backpeddling as well, well, this > is the age of multitasking. "That is not backpeddling. That is presenting the facts in a better light than they actually deserve. Or being diplomatic. Or not having to overstate what is blatantly obvious."
Ah shucks, what can a fella say in the face of such modesty; and while head spinning and backpeddleing and sidestepping at the same time.
> "Read my other post about "Dr" Cannon. He is a great example of someone > who you would think would be objective (ie. a "doctor") who appears to > be more of a marketer or a cheerleader than an objective and independent > medical professional." > > No thanks. "I'm sure you did read it. And you have nothing to say because it is absolutely damning to arguments you have presented before in this ng. When you have no legs to stand on, the best policy is to shut up and not comment. Good for you, you are learning something here."
Smile, I have no idea to even what thread you are referring let alone having read its contents. But with all that headspinning and backtracking and sidestepping dizziness is sure to result and a fella's grasp on reality weaken just a bit.
No thanks.
TC - 29 Nov 2006 02:33 GMT > > Not only do we find head spinning but backpeddling as well, well, this > > is the age of multitasking. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > No thanks. So you take it upon yourself to formulate and present arguments against thing sthat you do not even read. Why does that not surprise me?
TC
coonskin@amestwp.com - 29 Nov 2006 02:48 GMT "So you take it upon yourself to formulate and present arguments against thing sthat you do not even read. Why does that not surprise me?"
Smile, because the original post was about you coming to wholly unsupported conclusions with flimsy "proof". It was never about some other thread to which you now refer and for which I never said I read nor pretened to know its contents. All that headspinning and backtracking and sidestepping all at once takes a toll on common sense one sees.
TC - 29 Nov 2006 16:10 GMT > "So you take it upon yourself to formulate and present arguments against > thing sthat you do not even read. Why does that not surprise me?" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > backtracking and sidestepping all at once takes a toll on common sense > one sees. I did not come to a conclusion. I hinted that it may be proof of a certain conclusion. Big difference.
TC
Doug Freese - 03 Dec 2006 01:59 GMT >> "So you take it upon yourself to formulate and present arguments >> against [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I did not come to a conclusion. I hinted that it may be proof of a > certain conclusion. Big difference. What a BS artist! You have been spinning insinuation and half truths as facts you can't remember what the hell you have said.
-DF
TC - 03 Dec 2006 19:02 GMT > >> "So you take it upon yourself to formulate and present arguments > >> against [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > -DF Isn't that a neat sweeping generalisation? How about showing specific instances? I do not insinuate, I accuse. I don't play with half-truths except to point them out in studies and industry marketing.
TC
TC - 28 Nov 2006 21:46 GMT > http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/11/28/hscout536300.html > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > of cost-benefit analysis, whether the bang for the buck is worth it," > he said.
> Dr. Christopher P. Cannon, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women's who > was not involved with the study, has no doubts that the benefits of > statin therapy outweigh the costs. Who is this Dr. Christopher P. Cannon who is so sold on statins? (Pun intended):
Chistopher P. Cannon, M.D., F.A.C.C., Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck & Co., and Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc.; consultant for Aventis, Best Med, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Guilford Pharmaceuticals Inc., Ingenixo, Merck & Co., Millennium Pharmaceuticals, NCME, Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc., and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. (http://www.medscape.com/viewprogram/3779_authors; accessed 7/28/05) Contributing editor, Theheart.org, an on-line resource owned and produced by Conceptis Technologies, which provides advice to medical professionals on heart disease; has stock options in Conceptis Technologies. (http://www.theheart.org/viewAboutUs.do#sponsors; accessed 5/4/05) Co-author on "Addition of Clopidogrel to Aspirin and Fibrinolytic Therapy for Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevation," which is supported in part by Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. (N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 9; [Epub ahead of print].) Received research grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Sanofi-Synthelabo through the Department of Medicine of Brigham and Women's Hospital; served as a consultant to Asahi Chemical Company, Merck, Guilford Pharmaceuticals, Schering-Plough, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Pfizer, Vertex, Medicines Company, Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline. Served on the speakers' bureaus of Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Centocor, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Merck, Millennium, and Sanofi-Synthelabo; received honoraria for preparation of educational materials from Best Med, Discovery East, Excerpta Medica, Medical Decision Point, and NCME (Network for Continuing Medical Education, a for-profit firm); received honoraria for preparation of educational materials from Best Med, Discovery East, Excerpta Medica, Medical Decision Point, and NCME. (N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 9; [Epub ahead of print].; Chest. 2004;126:167S-71S.) Consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb for the Prove It study. (Stolberg, Sheryl Gay and Gerth, Jeff. "Drug Marketing 101: Proving Our Pill is Better than Yours," New York Times 12/23/00.) Received research grant support from Cor Therapeutics and Merck. (JAMA. 2000;283:2941-47.)
Hilarious, if it weren't so tragic.
> "The study is very important news for tens of millions of people here > in the United States," Cannon said. "It provides very important [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > TC mike - 03 Dec 2006 19:25 GMT > > http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/11/28/hscout536300.html > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > of cost-benefit analysis, whether the bang for the buck is worth it," > > he said. I think some of the confusion on statins stems from the fact that they do not help the elderly and woman when used as primary prevention, help in the sense that they lower overall mortality; whereas high risk middle age males clearly benefit with lower overall mortality figures in primary prevention.
Mike C.
Jim Chinnis - 03 Dec 2006 20:49 GMT "mike" <mcole8883@yahoo.com> wrote in part:
>I think some of the confusion on statins stems from the fact that they >do not help the elderly and woman when used as primary prevention, help >in the sense that they lower overall mortality; whereas high risk >middle age males clearly benefit with lower overall mortality figures >in primary prevention. The null hypotheses can't be rejected where overall mortality is concerned because the studies aren't powered sufficiently to do so even with clinically meaningful differences in mortality rates. Where subgroups are concerned, the power of the statistical tests drops even more.
To show that overall mortality drops by a relative 10% in women in primary prevention would be very meaningful, but it would would require a huge or very long-term study that has not yet been done. If one looks at the effects on morbidity, women, at least, look just like the overall group. But when they are analyzed alone as a subgroup, there just aren't enough deaths to conclude anything about mortality rates. -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu
|
|
|