11/18/13 Risk calculator for cholesterol appears flawed
Source: New York Times
Risk calculator for cholesterol appears flawed
By Gina Kolata The New York Times
12 hours ago
Last week, the nations leading heart organizations released a sweeping new set of guidelines for lowering cholesterol, along with an online calculator meant to help doctors assess risks and treatment options. But, in a major embarrassment to the health groups, the calculator appears to greatly overestimate risk, so much so that it could mistakenly suggest that millions more people are candidates for statin drugs.
The apparent problem prompted one leading cardiologist, a past president of the American College of Cardiology, to call on Sunday for a halt to the implementation of the new guidelines.
Its stunning, said the cardiologist, Dr. Steven Nissen, chief of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic. We need a pause to further evaluate this approach before it is implemented on a widespread basis.
The controversy set off turmoil at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association, which started this weekend in Dallas. After an emergency session on Saturday night, the two organizations that published the guidelines the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology said that while the calculator was not perfect, it was a major step forward, and that the guidelines already say patients and doctors should discuss treatment options rather than blindly follow a calculator.
Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/health/risk-calculator-cholesterol-appears-flawed-2D11603376
This is huge. There ought to be an investigation into the faulty calculator. It's a horrible situation for physicians.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)We treat everything with a pill, including use of one pill to counteract side-effects of other pills.
It's tragic.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)All though neither are ones to mess with. She has been diagnosed pre-diabetic, but is managing it with a healthy diet and exercise for the time being.
DURHAM D
(32,617 posts)Seems like a horrible situation for the patients to me.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)There is that aspect.
I didn't believe in the first recommendation anyhoo.
Now we know it's a disaster.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)but I just read that statin drugs have been tested to be safe and useful for lesser cholesterol levels than usually prescribed and for other positive health reasons. Did I get that wrong?
840high
(17,196 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)That was yesterday's news, that physicians were encouraged to add millions more patients to the list of statin users.
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)A friend had to have a liver transplant due to statins. The pharmaceutical company's make up the guidelines to sell more drugs!
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)"side effects of statins"
( use a privacy respecting search engine such as StartPage.com)
Horrible side effects.
Mr. Dixie's doc was pushing them, for a cholesterol reading of 204.
"Normal" test number is 200.
Used to be 240 was considered normal, till Big Pharma got involved.
Anyhow, Mr. Dixie started eating oatmeal a few times a week, and apples and raw carrots as snacks,
6 months later test showed ....173.
It is 168 now.
His doctor did not even ask why the lower levels...sheesh.
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)should be on statin drugs.
I think they're going way overboard with this drug.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)More American consumer $$$$ for everyone. Except, of course, for the American consumer.
The truth is, there is a whole lot of evidence that, for most people, those anti-cholesterol drugs are really really unhealthy.
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)I don't trust that drug. I fear we'll be hearing more about them in the years to come.
I really don't like the way they are being "shoved down our throats."
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)And he suggested (probably jokingly) that statins should be added to the water supply.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3931157.stm
The problem is the statistics on statin efficiacy are often presented in very misleading ways and the side effects are often grossly understated. It's hard to imagine that people like Reckless aren't somehow profiting from promoting these drugs. Not long ago it was revealed through the discovery process of a lawsuit that celebrity Dr. Drew was getting paid 6 figures to spew misleading information about Welbutrin. I think there's a lot more of that going on that we don't hear about.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/07/02/feds-say-dr-drew-was-paid-by-glaxo-to-talk-up-antidepressant/
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)and I don't think the person was joking. He was saying how amazing the drug is and that he foresees everyone taking them in the future. Something to that extent. Thanks again! Great Dr. Drew story! I don't trust any of those celebrity/doctors.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I used to listen to his radio show and thought he made a lot of sense, but now I just see him as an ambulance chasing self-promoter who is far more worried about his own bottom line than anyone he treats or advises. Several people from his TV show committed suicide as Pinsky was cashing in on their misery.
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Does anyone believe you would ever, ever read that the calculator "mistake" would have been to underestimate risk and therefore recommend statins to fewer people? Ha!
All of the biases are to prescribe more drugs.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)The story just a weekend ago was that millions more people would be told by their doctors that they need to be on a statin drug. Based on this flawed calculator.
This needs investigating, really. Statins can have very serious side effects.
The credibility of a doctor's word is at stake.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Locrian
(4,522 posts)yet there are (were) a ton of people saying that disagreeing with the original recommendation was just out of ignorance of 'real science'.
Follow. The. Money. Always.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....when big money is involved in medicine.
It's another manifestation of our total screwup of health care.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Pharma is in the business, IMO, of creating and managing symptoms.
ZERO interest in cures. ZERO.