[pfgpowell]

I have already seen my doctor and he has had blood tests done, which were inconclusinve, so more are being done, but I thought I might pick a few brains here.
I was put on statins in May 2006 after a heart attack. About seven months ago, I got pains in the balls of my feet. About four montsh ago, I got aches in the both upper arms and shoulders which coulde be excruciating if I move my arm in certain ways. For the the past two years, my body was getting increasingly stiff, but at first I put this down to ageing. Then, googling muscle pain and statins, I came across many refences to statin side-effects, some of which can be quite serious. I stopped taking the statins immediately, and bugger me that 'feeling old and stiff' complaint cleared up in a week. But I still get pains in the balls of my feet and upper arms and shoulders. My GP said the liver can take anything between three and 12 months to get and although HIS GP wanted to put him on statins (he is over 60), he refused point blank and says he is very sceptical about all the claims made for them. I shall be having the new blood tests in two weeks time (no appointment sooner), and will have to wait another week for the results to come back and see my GP. But i thought I might ask here what experiences others have had with muscle aches and pains and statins.

[Keefy-boy]

when you say the blood tests were inconclusive what do you mean? presumably this was a cholesterol test? how can that be inconclusive?

when you were put on statins after the heart attack did you have high cholesterol?

i've been on statins for a couple of years, i had very bad muscle spasms at first, but they stopped after a few weeks. i do get muscle asches and pains but hadn't attributed them to statins, might have to look into that!

[pfgpowell]

Originally Posted by Keefy-boy

when you say the blood tests were inconclusive. . . into that!

Cholesterol was a little higher than 'normal', about 6.2 when it 'should' be 4.8, or something, and one of the liver tests (liver salts?) was borderline, but all the other tests, standard ones for diabetes, prostate cancer etc, about 7/8 in all were 'normal'.

What was so dramatic after stopping taking the statins was recovering from stumbling about - really -, getting out of the car or up from my desk as though I were an old man and losing my balance a little. In only a matter of days all these things I had accepted as 'getting old' simply disappeared. But the aching muscles haven't and when I move my arms in certain ways, for example when tucking in mys shirt, the pain is excruciating. But it is odd: it grows ever worse then when I stop putting it in the position it was in, the pain subsidised again in about right seconds. However, the aching is pretty constant.

[Lemonhunny]

Originally Posted by pfgpowell

Cholesterol was a little higher than 'normal', about 6.2 when it 'should' be 4.8, or something, and one of the liver tests (liver salts?) was borderline, but all the other tests, standard ones for diabetes, prostate cancer etc, about 7/8 in all were 'normal'.

What was so dramatic after stopping taking the statins was recovering from stumbling about - really -, getting out of the car or up from my desk as though I were an old man and losing my balance a little. In only a matter of days all these things I had accepted as 'getting old' simply disappeared. But the aching muscles haven't and when I move my arms in certain ways, for example when tucking in mys shirt, the pain is excruciating. But it is odd: it grows ever worse then when I stop putting it in the position it was in, the pain subsidised again in about right seconds. However, the aching is pretty constant.

Change man for woman and you're describing my shoulder pains! And I've been on statins for nearly 8 years now, prescribed when I was diagnosed diabetic, because it's the "done" thing.

I've never had a problem with my cholesterol count even befoer going on the statins, so I think I might stop taking them and see how the shoulder pains go.

[pfgpowell]

Originally Posted by Lemonhunny

Change man for woman and you're describing my shoulder pains! And I've been on statins for nearly 8 years now, prescribed when I was diagnosed diabetic, because it's the "done" thing.

I've never had a problem with my cholesterol count even befoer going on the statins, so I think I might stop taking them and see how the shoulder pains go.

Well, I would do it in consultation with your GP, if only to keep him/her onside (some get rather ratty about patients freelancing, whether their rattiness is justified or not). But I SHOULD investigate whether there is a connection. I must stress that the shoulder/arm pains have not gone away, but the general feeling of being a bag of ill-fitting bones and walking and behaving like a 80-year-old pensioner (commented on latterly by friends and colleagues) disappeared within days.

Like my GP (in fact, he is a regular locum), I am hugely sceptical of 'we should all be on statins as a precaution'. Someone who most definitely benefits are the companies making and selling the stations. They would dearly love everyone and their dog to be downing their medication 24/7.

[ladydragon]

Originally Posted by pfgpowell

I have already seen my doctor and he has had blood tests done, which were inconclusinve, so more are being done, but I thought I might pick a few brains here.
I was put on statins in May 2006 after a heart attack. About seven months ago, I got pains in the balls of my feet. About four montsh ago, I got aches in the both upper arms and shoulders which coulde be excruciating if I move my arm in certain ways. For the the past two years, my body was getting increasingly stiff, but at first I put this down to ageing. Then, googling muscle pain and statins, I came across many refences to statin side-effects, some of which can be quite serious. I stopped taking the statins immediately, and bugger me that 'feeling old and stiff' complaint cleared up in a week. But I still get pains in the balls of my feet and upper arms and shoulders. My GP said the liver can take anything between three and 12 months to get and although HIS GP wanted to put him on statins (he is over 60), he refused point blank and says he is very sceptical about all the claims made for them. I shall be having the new blood tests in two weeks time (no appointment sooner), and will have to wait another week for the results to come back and see my GP. But i thought I might ask here what experiences others have had with muscle aches and pains and statins.

Not sure about the middle bit - three and twelve months to get ?????

If your GP is that unimpressed with statins I'm surprised he has been happily fulfilling your prescription since '06...

Are you still under cardiology care? If so, I would have thought they would also be involved to determine what, if any, medication, is still required...

Originally Posted by pfgpowell

Cholesterol was a little higher than 'normal', about 6.2 when it 'should' be 4.8, or something, and one of the liver tests (liver salts?) was borderline, but all the other tests, standard ones for diabetes, prostate cancer etc, about 7/8 in all were 'normal'.

I don't understand what they are inconclusive for?

Cholesterol is elevated to your previous readings and there's no mention of triglyceride levels... Liver issues from statins are normally indicated by raised enzyme levels so not sure which salts you mean... The others, in the absence of disease query would be anticipated to be negative...

Statins are definitely not suitable for everyone by any means but my husband has been on them for 14yrs with zero side effects at all...

Due to some kidney complications recently he had them withdrawn for a short period - his cholesterol immediately jumped from 4.2 back up to 19.1 (drug induced from his anti rejection medication) with triglyceride levels at 21 when the maximum should be 2... The statins plus febo fibrates were instantly resumed and seem to be having a positive result...

Blood like sticky tar, full of easily visible blobby bits and plasma the colour and texture of toffee isn't exactly beneficial to anyone...

For the right patient, correctly prescribed, statins can be very suitable and do exactly what they say on the tin... Anyone considering coming off them should see their GP or consulting clinician first...

[pfgpowell]

Originally Posted by ladydragon

If your GP is that unimpressed with statins I'm surprised he has been happily fulfilling your prescription since '06...

Are you still under cardiology care? If so, I would have thought they would also be involved to determine what, if any, medication, is still required...

My GP didn't prescribe them, the prescription was first made by the caridology staff at Hammersmith hospital when I first had my heart attack (I work in London for four days a week and was there when it occurred.) After that it was simply repeated, though granted the dosage was never reviewed, and the last time I saw my GP two weeks ago, he did comment that at 40mg, the dosage was high (and I did think, tho' said nothing at the time) that in that case he should have reduced it a year or two ago.

As for the liver blood tests, the enzyme level was normal, and when I talk of the 'salt' level (a second liver test) I am simply repeating what the GP (it was a regular locum today) said. I haven't a clue what it means.

Yes, he consulted some reference book to make sure he hadn't got it wrong and said it was usually three months before livers got back to normal funcntion and it could be as many as 12.

There is also the point to be made that, strictly speaking, 'normal' levels mean nothing more than the usual level we usually find in people we deem to be healthy. Someone might be perfectly healthy, yet have a level which deviated quite a bit form the 'norm'.

As for the three months, he even consulted a reference book to make sure what he thought he knew was right, and it confirmed that it is aroung three months that it takes a liver to return to normal function, but it can be up to 12.

[ladydragon]

Originally Posted by pfgpowell

As for the liver blood tests, the enzyme level was normal, and when I talk of the 'salt' level (a second liver test) I am simply repeating what the GP (it was a regular locum today) said. I haven't a clue what it means.

Yes, he consulted some reference book to make sure he hadn't got it wrong and said it was usually three months before livers got back to normal funcntion and it could be as many as 12.

There is also the point to be made that, strictly speaking, 'normal' levels mean nothing more than the usual level we usually find in people we deem to be healthy. Someone might be perfectly healthy, yet have a level which deviated quite a bit form the 'norm'.

As for the three months, he even consulted a reference book to make sure what he thought he knew was right, and it confirmed that it is aroung three months that it takes a liver to return to normal function, but it can be up to 12.

If the enzyme levels were within normal ranges then that's a good thing... There shouldn't be any long term damage providing function tests are maintained as elevations can recover...

You are correct about 'normal' levels... Which is why I've not got the foggiest what my cholesterol is and don't plan anytime soon on taking statins (or anything else) as I'm healthy with no reason to poke around... They're not given to everyone as a precautionary measure... But I'm presuming, as you were prescribed them after your heart attack, that you might not have been considered to be a person of quite 'normal' health... Your doc no doubt was armed with info on the underlying (if identified) cause of the attack...

Possibly, after a period of good health, they could have been gradually reduced with ongoing blood tests to find your 'normal' cholesterol etc that everyone was happy with and could be maintained without drug support if possible...

I would advise though (for what it's worth), that as it appears you've been allowed to coast along with no monitoring for a while, that you ensure you're regularly checked for cholesterol and lipid levels to make sure they don't do anything strange from here on in...

My OH's cholesterol jumped 4.2 to 19.1 in less than one month so it can go bonkers quickly... Statins are undeniably helpful and necessary for some patients - it's not just a matter of them being flogged unnecessarily for everyone and their dog to take...

Stay well

[pfgpowell]

Originally Posted by ladydragon

Stay well

Thank you.

There's just one last, rather peripheral point I would like to make, and I alluded to it earlier on. It is that I would like the NHS, the Government and every other interested body to take another look at the influence and clout international pharmaceutical companies have. I do feel that their encouragement for everyone to down pills as though there were no tomorrow should be stringently re-assessed.

After I stopped taking the statins, I googled all the newspapers and came across any number of features pieces on their health pages reporting that the conventional advice is now that everyone over 40 should take statins daily 'as a precaution'. What! This all started about 6/7 years ago, and I remember hearing a feature on Radio 4's Your And Yours introducing statins as more or less a wonder drug and also quoting doctors giving the same advice.

Now I know we are always being encouraged to eat more healthily along the 'five a day' line (and even though I say so myself, my heart attack notwithstanding, I have a far halthier diet than many merely because I don't have a sweet tooth, but a savoury one, I was brought up on the Continent with olive oil, garlic, all kinds of salad things, and soused herrings etc, and since my children were born 13 and 10 years ago I've just more or less gone off meat), but there is a horrible tendency for the pharma industry to come up with some drug, then cast about looking for some illness for which it might be prescribed. It is a multi-billion pound industry and we should examine our relationship with it very, very carefully.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by pfgpowell

there is a horrible tendency for the pharma industry to come up with some drug, then cast about looking for some illness for which it might be prescribed. It is a multi-billion pound industry and we should examine our relationship with it very, very carefully.

I agree entirely. Whenever I see a news report claiming that a particular medicine should be taken by lots of people I just see a sales pitch on behalf of big pharma. Be very wary.

[KathD]

I was prescribed statins earlier this year and suffered various side-effects. Extreme tiredness, leg muscles cramping etc etc. After discussion with the practice nurse I dropped the dosage which didn't change things so she agreed a couple of weeks back to give me a six-week trial without any. Miraculous - no side effects - just got to hope my cholesterol reading is ok when I go for my next appointment.

I really do not want to take this drug and feel it is being forced on to me - can't remember the figure, but I didn't think my cholesterol was too high.

There was a tv programme recently and one or two people had severe problems - I realise these are the minority - b ut I don't want to join them.

[pfgpowell]

Originally Posted by KathD

I was prescribed statins earlier this year and suffered various side-effects. Extreme tiredness, leg muscles cramping . . .

I, too, was getting VERY tired, though it wasn't like the exhaustion I felt in the months leading up to my heart attack, and extremely sleepy. At first I thought it might have to do with a drug called Ramipril which I had been prescribed, again as a 'precaution', to regulate my blood pressure. I had already asked to come off another blood pressure drug - I'd been prescribed three medications in all by the hospital consultant - very early on because I was so tired.

But the tiredness carried on, and I googled Ramipril but found nothing. Then, only on a whim, did I google Lipitor (the statin), initially for tiredness and read about the muscular side-effects.

Since stopping Lipitor, the statin, the tiredness and sleepiness have also stopped, and believe me it was bad. I got really fed up with it. And, oddly, it wasn't 'not having energy', just 24 hour 'Lord, I'd like to go to bed'.

The real problem is that if I had another heart attack, everyone would stand vindicated and say 'told you so'. If I don't, which I bloody well hope I don't, they will say 'well, you were lucky'. I do so loathe shysters.

[susie-4964]

Yeah, these drug companies are real bastards, especially the ones that make these anti-cancer drugs that save people. The Government should nationalise them, that would teach them to develop stuff that people really need.

[ladydragon]

Originally Posted by pfgpowell

Thank you.

There's just one last, rather peripheral point I would like to make, and I alluded to it earlier on. It is that I would like the NHS, the Government and every other interested body to take another look at the influence and clout international pharmaceutical companies have. I do feel that their encouragement for everyone to down pills as though there were no tomorrow should be stringently re-assessed.

After I stopped taking the statins, I googled all the newspapers and came across any number of features pieces on their health pages reporting that the conventional advice is now that everyone over 40 should take statins daily 'as a precaution'. What! This all started about 6/7 years ago, and I remember hearing a feature on Radio 4's Your And Yours introducing statins as more or less a wonder drug and also quoting doctors giving the same advice.

Newspaper health pages aren't necessarily written by health professionals... On a personal basis (and I do know a wide circle of people being over 40 myself), it's never been suggested I or any family member should take them and I don't actually know anyone who is taking statins other than my husband... Considering he's only 34 and has been on them since his early twenties it all kinda flies in the face of the claim that "conventional advice is that everyone over 40 should take statins daily as a precaution"... Whatever clout the pharmaceutical companies have, it's clearly not working if that's the aim...

Originally Posted by pfgpowell

I, too, was getting VERY tired, though it wasn't like the exhaustion I felt in the months leading up to my heart attack, and extremely sleepy. At first I thought it might have to do with a drug called Ramipril which I had been prescribed, again as a 'precaution', to regulate my blood pressure. I had already asked to come off another blood pressure drug - I'd been prescribed three medications in all by the hospital consultant - very early on because I was so tired.

But the tiredness carried on, and I googled Ramipril but found nothing. Then, only on a whim, did I google Lipitor (the statin), initially for tiredness and read about the muscular side-effects.

Since stopping Lipitor, the statin, the tiredness and sleepiness have also stopped, and believe me it was bad. I got really fed up with it. And, oddly, it wasn't 'not having energy', just 24 hour 'Lord, I'd like to go to bed'.

The real problem is that if I had another heart attack, everyone would stand vindicated and say 'told you so'. If I don't, which I bloody well hope I don't, they will say 'well, you were lucky'. I do so loathe shysters.

One of the most frequent side effects of Ramipril can be fatigue... For sensitive individuals there's also a whole host of other side effects - nothing pleasant about severe angioedema, erectile disfunction, pancreatitis, hepatitis, neutropenia etc etc... Like any drug, the potential for side effects is kinda vast and it won't suit everyone, *but* for others, it's a perfectly suitable drug that their system works well with... I can't take aspirin or any other NSAIDs without bleeding like a stuck pig and horrendous pain - just the luck of the draw they don't suit me but they suit others so I'm not going to rage about pharmaceutical companies for making a drug available that causes problems to me and some other individuals...

I qualified in herbalism and aromatherapy so do believe in 'natural' where possible... But when natural doesn't cut the mustard I'll cheerfully resort to clinical medication if required... Any drug is a trade off... Sometimes the complications outweigh any potential benefit and other times the complications are negligible and/or minor enough to continue taking the drug...

Should hubby have blood that's so lipemic he can't dialyse properly and he snuffs it or should he take this (as is often mentioned) 'irresponsibly prescribed' statin that manages his cholesterol problems,gives him no noticeable side effects, and enables adequate dialysis so he keeps breathing? No brainer really... For him, it is a wonder drug that, in conjunction with his other medication protocols, keeps him ticking over...

Ideally he wouldn't have kidney failure, wouldn't have a dicky transplant and wouldn't be on anti rejection medication that sends his cholesterol and lipids nuclear... But that's life and the best clinical decision has to be made... His team have saved his life often enough for me to know he comes first not what some pharmaceutical company might think... I'd hope most clinicians take the same view...

Hopefully, all will be well and you won't have another heart attack whichever way your clinical support goes from here...