Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / December 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

dueling studies on statins

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.