Note to our followers: Our nearly 13-year run of daily publication of new content on HealthNewsReview.org comes to a close at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. But all of the 6,000+ articles we have published contain lessons to help you improve your critical thinking about health care interventions. And those will be still be alive on the site for a couple of years.

Statins for everyone over 40? What patients need to think about before filling that prescription

Posted By

Categories

Kevin Lomangino is the managing editor of HealthNewsReview.org. He tweets as @Klomangino.

Atorvastatin Tablets Close-upThe Washington Post is reporting on new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for statin drugs. The headline is that “Everyone 40 and older should be considered for the drug therapy.”

Everyone?

The recommendations apply to adults 40 to 75 years who have 1 or more cardiovascular disease risk factors and a calculated 10-year CVD event risk of 7.5% or more.

That’s not everyone.

And while the Post’s framing may make it sound like statins are a slam dunk for heart disease prevention, even among healthy adults who aren’t at increased risk, that’s hardly a unanimous opinion among experts in cardiovascular disease.

This disagreement was front and center in the coverage of journalist Larry Husten, who headlined his piece on the guidelines at Cardiobrief: Debate Ensues As USPSTF Finalizes Statin Primary Prevention Guideline; Broad disagreement about how, when, and if to use statins.

The second paragraph of Husten’s story gives an overview of the wide-ranging concerns that have been raised:

But accompanying the guideline, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, came a slew of editorials and viewpoints, most expressing disagreements with many key details of the recommendation. No common theme emerged in the articles, suggesting that there is little consensus on how to implement or even think about primary prevention. Most— but not all— the experts expressed strong support for the concept of primary prevention with statins. but with different underlying philosophies and widely varying ideas about how it should best be implemented.

Specific issues that critics have called attention to include:

  • The absolute reduction in risk is small for individuals at lower risk; advocates for broader use have emphasized relative risk reductions which may be misleading.
  • Trials failed to rigorously collect data on adverse effects such as muscle pain, which may lead to systematic underestimation of those effects.
  • Sponsors of industry-funded trials haven’t shared individual patient-level data from the studies with other investigators. This could bias the results of the meta-analysis that USPSTF relied on for its recommendations.

The Post does eventually get around to voicing some of these concerns, and that’s a good thing, but only after the headline and 8 paragraphs of copy hammer the need for “everyone” over 40 to think about filling a statin prescription.

With data from 2012-13 showing that the U.S. rings up some $17 billion in statin costs annually, we need to think about the impact of such broad recommendations not just on an individual level but as a society. I’m reminded of a post last year by Dr. John Mandrola headlined: “Statins in Primary Prevention: Welcome to the Gray Zone” (registration required).

Money quote:

Drugs are not free. Aspirin and statins come with side effects and dollar costs. The patient who takes these drugs in hopes of preventing future events makes the gamble that the costs are worth the benefit. Policy makers who recommend these drugs expose millions of people to a therapy that turns on delicate balance between future benefit and harm.

If the new recommendations – and/or news coverage thereof – lead a significant percentage of Americans over age 40 to schedule screenings, it could have profound policy implications.

How many more billions will be spent on office visits, further testing, prescriptions, and followup care for any harms caused by statins (even if only in a very small number of users)? And how will a Trump administration, one of whose bedrock promises is the end of the Affordable Care Act, deal with what those additional costs do to the nation’s health care cost burden?

You might also like

Comments (2)

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.

Craig Stoltz

November 15, 2016 at 6:55 am

Wonderful, timely response to runaway coverage. Q: Has anyone estimated the percent of the adult population to whom the new guidelines properly apply? Reporting that with specificity would provide a clear response to the ‘everybody’ coverage. I.e., it’s not ‘everybody, it’s about [say] 37%.

Stephen Cox, MD

November 21, 2016 at 10:57 am

Will some dedicated, honest and ethical health experts please just give us the simple truth about statin safety and benefits(ABSOLUTE, not RELATIVE)!!