Statins
BMJ 2024; 384 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-072584 (Published 24 January 2024) Cite this as: BMJ 2024;384:e072584
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor
This is an excellent discourse on Statins but of the 5,000 words only 39 were focused on diet and exercise and the BMJ could have encouraged a more appropriate balance. In the the eleven years since my myocardial infarction i have had about 60 boxes of statins which i take every day each box with copious information in each box but i have not had one word from the NHS about diet or exercise after the first three months rehabilitation. Drug prescribing needs to be automatically linked to activity prescribing and in our national campaign for Living Longer Bette (www.livelongerbetter.uk) we are introducing digital activity prescriptions (1). We are also exploring how pharmacies could dispense knowledge, encouragement, and exercise equipment, as well as dispensing drugs
Gray JAM and Butler K (2017)
The need for Activity Therapy
Brit J General Practice
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X692789
Competing interests: we are promoting activity prescribing alongside drug prescribing
Dear Editor,
Too often, doctors are turning to drug therapy, such as statins, to treat dyslipidaemia rather than treat the root cause, which is often insulin resistance that is secondary to excess sugar and refined carbohydrate consumption. The focus should be on treating the cause of the disease not just the symptoms.
Furthermore, the NNT is so large that the effectiveness of statins is often exaggerated, especially by those doctors who have links to the pharmaceutical industry.
Statins cause Insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes being at the extreme end of the spectrum of insulin resistance. This is a serious issue which is often underplayed. Insulin resistance is the root cause of metabolic syndrome - so this side effect of statins is serious.
Many are sceptical of statins. To give credibility to industry-sponsored trials, the raw data needs to be published and independently verified to ascertain whether there is any bias in the studies. Only through complete openness and transparency can we assess the effectiveness and side effects of these drugs.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Statins
Dear Editor
I note with some concern the new suggestion to consider initiating statin treatment at >1%, and that this risk is considered moderate in this article. The average risk of a 50 year old man as assessed on QRISK3 is 3.6%. And and that of a 60 year old man is 7%. This would make life long statins standard for even those under 50.
In fact average QRISK3 10 year risk reaches 1.1% for men at the grand old age of 40. And that is for a non-smoker of normal weight.
Do we really want to even consider treating most of the population life long from this age?
Competing interests: No competing interests