Editorial Commentary on Fox News re Cholesterol Drugs

[Guest guest]

I was doing some net surfing on the news pages and came across this

one. It makes some interesting points - and allegations. To keep

my own blood pressure in check, I will refrain from making my own

comments.

-------------

Pfizer's Lipitor edged out Bristol-Myers Squibb's Pravachol in a

head-to-head competition between the two cholesterol-lowering drugs,

a new study reported last week. It appeared to be a disappointing

result for study-funder Bristol-Myers. Not to worry, though. There

seems to be a move afoot to make sure there are plenty of profits

for all.

The study compared the health outcomes among heart-attack patients

treated with either Lipitor (search) or Pravachol (search), members

of a class of drugs called statins (search). Twenty-two percent of

Lipitor patients died or experienced further adverse coronary events

during the clinical trial compared to 26 percent of Pravachol

patients. Although I'm not sure that such a small difference in a

single clinical trial really proves that Lipitor is a better

treatment than Pravachol, what struck me is how the study was being

used as a platform for the unnecessary pushing of expensive drugs on

the general public.

It is estimated on the basis of the criteria in the national

guidelines that 36 million people in the United States should be

taking a statin, but only 11 million are currently being treated.

Worldwide the discrepancy is even more staggering; more than 200

million people meet the criteria for treatment, but fewer than 25

million take statins, wrote Dr. J. Topol (search) in an

editorial accompanying the study in the New England Journal of

Medicine. Americans already pay about $12.5 billion for statins

every year. So Dr. Topol urged this tab be pushed to almost $40

billion.

Given ever-increasing prescription drug costs and other health care

costs being foisted on the public, we ought to stop, take a deep

breath, and ask if its really necessary to turn America into a

nation on statins. As discussed in more detail in Dr. Uffe

Ravnskov's (search) book, The Cholesterol Myths, just because you

have an elevated cholesterol level (i.e., greater than 200), doesn't

mean you are at increased risk of heart disease. Atherosclerosis,

the build-up of plaque in arteries, also occurs in individuals with

low cholesterol levels. High cholesterol may indicate that you have

some underlying health issue, but a high cholesterol level by itself

isn't necessarily a problem.

Cholesterol (search) is vital to the cells of all mammals. Our

bodies produce much more cholesterol than we eat ¯ that's why diet

alone doesn't always reduce cholesterol levels and why statins are

used. Statins do reduce cholesterol levels and deaths from heart

disease, according to Dr. Ravnskov, but here's the rub ¯ there's no

evidence the two are related. Statins seem to protect against heart

disease regardless of whether cholesterol levels are high or low.

Statins apparently do much more than lower cholesterol levels but no

one knows what, says Dr. Ravnskov.

Isn't it wonderful that the statins work? Shouldn't we all take

statins?, asks Dr. Ravnskov. You be the judge.