Just last year, a lengthy and autoritative study from a joint US-UK panel determined that statins in general were over prescribed, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12224312 , and that they might not be effective in curbing cholesterol caused heart disease, since it did diminish the good cholesterol in the bloodstream and also was found that when in concomitance with a strict low-fat diet, it caused Metabolic Syndrome in patients.
The only thing that panel found to be positive or effective from statin treatment was the reduction of a 'second' heart attack, in patients with a history of infarction.
No sooner had the study been published that the medical community in the US undertook an independent study which has been published this week, in which new guidelines were laid out for the prescription of statins.
The new guidelines raised many eyebrows: first of all, it runs completely contrary to the US-UK study, and second it seems to go completely overboard in suggesting that statins should be used aggressively in people with even limited risk.
That prompted a redirection of sorts by others in the medical community, who have pointed out that the risk of stroke and heart attack in the new 'guidelines' are grossly overstated.
This, to many, sounds and feels like a handout to the pharmaceutical companies, since their sale of the statin drugs have earned them billions. The US-UK study, in fact, could have seriously compromised their immense market share of the drug, at least in some countries, which could be offset if the US medical community adopt the new overblown recommendations for statin treatment.
The new 'guidelines' were released by the ACC, or American college of Cardiologists. According to their recommendations, at least 33 million Americans should be on statin therapy.
But Harvard researchers have placed meaningful objections to the guidelines, saying that they exaggerate the risks.
In fact, the Harvard review posits that at lest 40-50%, or nearly half, of the 33 million targeted patients, do not have "risk thresholds that exceeded the threshold suggested for treatment", according to Nancy Cook of The Lancet, and her researcher colleague, Paul Ridker.
What the researchers object to, are the calculation formula employed by the ACC to the five groups of people in their study. The formula, in the Harvard group's estimation is exaggerated by a whopping 75-150%.
Op-Ed
Source : France 24/ 11.20.13
No comments:
Post a Comment