Cover Image: April 2010 Scientific American Magazine See Inside

Static over Statins: Should Young People without Cholesterol Problems Take Statins?

New recommendations to expand statin use will save lives but also raise questions about aggressively treating the healthy















Share on Tumblr

But even rare side effects can be important when drugs are aggressively used. In 2007 Karas published a study in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology suggesting that the risk of complications increases with statin dose. If more people start taking statins and at higher doses, many more people will experience problems. “It’s one thing to treat a person who’s had a heart attack with a statin drug for five or 10 years, because their likelihood of a vascular event is very high. It’s another thing to take 35-year-olds who have high cholesterol and treat them for 30 years,” Muldoon says. “That’s a whole different argument to make and justify.”

Karas points out that he is not against broader statin treatment. He simply believes that guidelines should reflect existing data. And even if the results of JUPITER do not apply to truly healthy people, that does not mean they are not relevant. “There’s a sizable proportion of the American adult population that has a risk factor profile that’s similar to JUPITER,” Karas says. “If you look out across the U.S., it’s not a very healthy population.”



This article was originally published with the title Static over Statins.



Subscribe     Buy This Issue

Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

Melinda Wenner Moyer is a freelance science writer based in New York City.


Rights & Permissions

8 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. Bob I. 07:51 PM 3/21/10

    How interesting that drug companies select people for studies that will prove their point. Who ever sees the studies that are negative? Many doctors believe that inflammation as seen by high C-reactive protein levels in the test subjects is a contributing, if not primary cause of arterial problems.

    Our medical costs will continue to increase out of control until we stop drug companies from staging tests to sell expensive drugs with dramatic side effects.

    When will we ever tackle the real health issue - life style changes?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. jerryd 08:29 PM 3/31/10


    I wonder how many are like me that Lipitor almost killed!! It gave me fibromialgia like symptoms of server muscle pain and weakness that made me bed ridden. I now realize that happen to my mother too who was diagnosed with 'fibromialgia'. I stop against my doctors orders and I got better in 2 weeks.

    I switched to Zocor and after 6 months became deeply depressed. Stopped it and got better fast and no problem since.

    Cholesterol is an important big part of your brain and most cells so easily can affect many parts of your body.

    What they don't tell you is aspirin, fish oil, Tumeric/curry as is exersise, good eating habits are each about as good at preventing heart attacks as satins are with far less side effects, costs.

    If we had universal health care a computer program could with everyone's records find out most of this stuff and tell us what works and what don't. Plus tell us when drug companies are lying which is about whenever they open their mouths. Their record speaks for itself.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. Iahmad 02:54 AM 4/1/10

    It is like keeping people at edge and then offering solution of your choice. Keep public pumping that you may not get heart problems if you start taking statins; majority will start taking it. Keep public frightened about terror attacks and suggest passing laws which will take away all your freedom; majority will agree with that. Thats how 3% of people in the world decide how life of 97% public should be lived and then impose upon it. Whether it is lobbyists and media working for pharma or war industry.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. riv 10:28 PM 4/2/10

    Dr. Antonio Gotto:

    "Antonio Gotto, M.D., Dean, Weill Cornell University Medical College, New York City. Co-author on Intensive lipid lowering with atorvastatin in patients with stable coronary disease, which was **sponsored by Pfizer**.

    Received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Schering-Plough, Pfizer, Novartis, and Reliant and lecture fees from Pfizer, Merck, Schering-Plough, AstraZeneca, and Reliant. Testified before the Food and Drug Administration on behalf of Johnson & Johnson-Merck. (N Engl J Med. 2005;352. E-pub ahead of print.)

    "Consulting fees" and "sponsored by" are euphemisms for "on the payroll." which every grade six science student knows, but seems not to be evident to the reporter who re-arranged the press release on this one.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  5. 5. 29billion.com 09:53 AM 4/3/10

    As usual the relative percentages have been quoted here - this is very misleading.

    The trial found that rosuvastatin reduced the risk of cardiovascular events by 44 percent as compared with placebo.

    In fact, the drug rosuvastatin only reduced serious cardiac events by less than 1 percent (0.9 percent). This is the absolute percentage. AstraZeneca issued a press release after the JUPITER trial detailing the relative percentage of 44 percent which grossly exaggerates the benefits. The relative percentage has been copied by the media and circulated all over the world. It is time that this was corrected. Visit www.29billion.com for more details&

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  6. 6. spiritosl 02:16 PM 4/3/10

    One problem with the JUPITER trial.

    When reading tables 3 and 4 in the original JUPITER article it is observed
    that in the rosuvastatin group 31 got a myocardial infarction (MI) and 22
    survivors of the MI which means nine deaths out of 31 MI, i.e. a mortality
    rate of 9/31=29 % mortality of the treatment group with an MI.

    It is observed that in the placebo group 68 got an MI and 62 survivors which
    means six deaths out of 68 MI, i.e. a mortality rate of 6/68=8.8 % mortality
    of the placebo group with an MI.

    It is observed that in the treatment group nine deaths out of 142 that reach
    the primary endpoint (PE) which means a mortality rate of 9/142= 6.3 %
    mortality of the treatment group with a PE.

    It is observed that in the placebo group six deaths out of 251 that reach
    the PE which means a mortality rate of 6/251= 2.3 % mortality of the placebo
    group with a PE.

    Who would take rosuvastatin?

    Also, statins are mevalonate inhibitors. Mevalonate is the source not only of cholesterol but also of Coenzyme Q10, dolichols, prenylated proteins. All molecules that are essential to us.

    Who would ever take statins?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  7. 7. Just ME in T 10:50 PM 4/3/10

    Suggest you read and learn from articles such as this one:

    In an article entitled Needs to Change the Direction of Cholesterol-Related Medication  A Problem of Great Urgency, published in November 2005, Japanese researcher H. Okuyama reported his findings based upon the data available in the medical literature. He concluded,  . . . reducing the intake of saturated fatty acids and cholesterol and increasing that of polyunsaturated fatty acid are ineffective in reducing total cholesterol in the long run, but rather increase mortality rates from coronary heart disease and all causes . . . high total cholesterol is not positively associated with high coronary heart disease mortality rates among general populations more than 40-50 years of age.

    More importantly, higher total cholesterol values are associated with lower cancer and all-cause mortality rates among these populations . . . Although the effectiveness of statins in preventing coronary heart disease has been accepted in Western countries, little benefit seems to result from efforts to limit dietary cholesterol intake or to lower TC values to less than approximately 260 mg/dl among the general population and the elderly . . . (These measures) create major risk factors for CHD, cancers, and shorter longevity.

    Based on the data reviewed here, it is urgent to change the direction of current cholesterol-related medication for the prevention of CHD, cancer, and all-cause mortality.


    this and others can be read at
    http://just-me-in-t-health.blogspot.com/

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  8. 8. clio.wu 10:51 PM 4/4/10

    Maybe people can try some nutrient diet for their disease?
    coz I deeply beilieve in our country's medicine too much(chinese)
    I found that the drug problem is the same as in my home, lots of new, expensive drugs are produced but it seems does work very well. While people here forget the magic power of our country's medicine. natural herb medicine with regular lifestyle,balanced food diet.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

Tweets could not be retrieved at this time

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Science Jobs of the Week

Email this Article

Static over Statins: Should Young People without Cholesterol Problems Take Statins?: Scientific American Magazine

X
Scientific American MIND iPad

Tap into your MIND

Get Both Print & Tablet Editions for one low price!

Subscribe Now >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X