Cholesterol-lowering drugs

Carla

Carla

Senior Member
Location
Pa
For the past 15+ years, my cholesterol levels have fluctuated and I have been prescribed at least four different medications to bring it down. Just went today for a blood drawl, so I am concerned that if it is high, my doc will try to prescribe again. My concern is this-- I always have had side effects that I feel are quite intolerable. I suspect too that many of my health issues began after taking these drugs. (Digestive) Of course, the doctor doesn't seem to believe this but I do. I have never tried a drug with the attitude I would have problem, in fact it takes several weeks sometimes to have a "reaction". I always hoped that one would work.

I am just wondering how many of you have been prescribed these drugs and if you have had side effects (listed or rare) and felt strongly it must be from the med? I get the feeling that doctors push these meds and want to get as many people on them as they can. If I had no problem with them, I probably would be willing to take them but we all know there is a "trade-off" for any medication we take, especially long-term. My reason for asking is I wonder if anyone else have used any of these and had digestive issues later?
 

I have taken a statin for years... I have taken Crestor with great results.. but my Insurance company stopped paying for it. My doctor then put me on Lipitor.. I could not tolerate that and had severe muscle pain. I did not experience digestive issues.. Now I take Pravachol... and it does the trick... Lowers my cholesterol without any side effects. My lab tests are great..

Here's what my Dr. said. Most people have trouble with the Fat soluble Statins.. They tend to build up in your fat cells and muscles. Lipitor is a fat soluble variety. Crestor and Pravachol are water soluble and do not cause the same problems.. My cholesterol is now down way under 200.. and I feel fine.
 
I was on Lipitor the longest. Had some real problem with that one. I was on two that worked in the digestive system and one other statin, I forget the name. After four trys, I'm a little gun shy. At one point, I was prescribed Nexium and had side effects from that--had such awful pain in the gut, now I was getting a little angry. I refuse to take a drug to counteract side effects of another unless of course, it's life threatening.(like an antibiotic)

I am not overweight and I exercise regularly. Probably some genetic factors involved since my siblings are similar. We all have high BP too. I think my sister takes Crestor. Her doc did a genetic study on her to determine what drugs her body would tolerate. Probably expensive but she works for a doc. Anyway, thanks for responding and mentioning Crestor. I'm thinking each new generation will improve too. Some people can take any drug with no problem just I'm not one of them.
 

With a family history of high cholesterol, I've been taking statins for years. At one time I tried OTC red yeast rice tables on my own, but they didn't have much affect for me. I've been on Lipitor, lovastatin, and most recently atorvastatin, which is working much better. When I look it up seems to me atorvastatin is the same drug as Lipitor, maybe generic?

I have not had any side effects that I could attribute to that period of time on statins. I have plenty of arthritis and joint, knee and toe pain but am pretty sure it's natural for my age.

I do think, Carla, that if you think your issues are related, they probably are. In fact, looking up Liptor/atorvastatin, digestive issues is high on the list. I have those mildly, but blame mine on post gall bladder removal.
 
My cholesterol had risen to 278 a couple of years ago and my doctor wanted to put me on a statin. I refused. I have some really negative feelings about the pharmaceutical companies. First most have become publicly owned companies who are more concerned with their stockholders than they are for their customers and employees. They jack the cost of the Rx's multiple times the actual cost of producing and delivering them. CEO's earn outrageous salaries that we are paying for.
There was a time when the Top "normal" was 50 higher - 250. Once they came up with a chol. lowering drug max bigh was lowered - and there is talk of lowering it further - so more people can be talked into taking it.
Anyway, I had put on 15 to 20 lbs and I opted to lose weight and and increase my exercise. I also looked into red rice yeast. It took me over 4 months to get it below 200. I pretty much cut all fat and meat out of my diet (didn't eat a whole lot of meat anyway) and I signed up for a martial arts class. I took the red rice yeast until I got my cholesterol down - now I take it only when i'm a bad girl and eat bad things - like at Thanksgiving and Christmas. I ordered the testing machine and the strips and test my own cholesterol periodically. One thing I have found is that as the percentage of muscle increases and the percentage of my body fat decreased, my cholesterol stays under better control. This may not work for every one but it has worked for me and I just passed the big 80 this month
 
Carla said:
I was on Lipitor the longest. Had some real problem with that one. I was on two that worked in the digestive system and one other statin, I forget the name. After four trys, I'm a little gun shy. At one point, I was prescribed Nexium and had side effects from that--had such awful pain in the gut, now I was getting a little angry. I refuse to take a drug to counteract side effects of another unless of course, it's life threatening.(like an antibiotic)

I am not overweight and I exercise regularly. Probably some genetic factors involved since my siblings are similar. We all have high BP too. I think my sister takes Crestor. Her doc did a genetic study on her to determine what drugs her body would tolerate. Probably expensive but she works for a doc. Anyway, thanks for responding and mentioning Crestor. I'm thinking each new generation will improve too. Some people can take any drug with no problem just I'm not one of them.
Click to expand...


I'm thinking that now that I will be on Medicare part D.. of going back to Crestor.. It worked the best for me.. Unfortunately my Employer's Insurance plan would not pay one penny toward it, as there are no generic alternatives. I'm going to see what my Part D plan will pay.

You are correct in saying that some people have a genetic predisposition to hyperlipidemia.. It's not a matter of controlling it with weight loss, diet or exercise.. I did all that and my total Cholesterol was 345!! Unfortunately some of us have livers that over produce cholesterol.. add that to dietary cholesterol and it goes off the charts. Statins have, I'm sure, added to my life.
 
I've been on a high dose of simvastatin for five years after returning a cholesterol level of 8.5. I have had no side effects at all- and I was reluctant to start taking them because of what I'd read.
 
QuickSilver said:
You are correct in saying that some people have a genetic predisposition to hyperlipidemia.. It's not a matter of controlling it with weight loss, diet or exercise.. I did all that and my total Cholesterol was 345!! Unfortunately some of us have livers that over produce cholesterol.. add that to dietary cholesterol and it goes off the charts. Statins have, I'm sure, added to my life.
Click to expand...

You are correct in saying there are people genetically predisposed - there are many diseases to which people are predisposed - one of the biggies is coronary disease For those people more stringent measures are needed to bring it under control. All our bodies produce chol. and some produce more that others. Our bodies can react differently to different meds also. I go by the motto "if the consequences of not taking it are worse than the consequences of taking it, then take it and vice versa". I was an RN before I retired; we tend to fall into 2 categories - those who take a pill for every little complaint and those who rarely take even an aspirin. I tend to fall into the latter category. Over the years I have developed a strong distrust for the pharmaceutical companies - and some recent events have indicated that the distrust is not displaced.
Also there has been some new research which suggests Cholesterol by itself is not quite the villain it has been labeled;rather it is the HDL/LDL's that are the bigger villain.(I'm also distrustful of any statistics based research of medical cause and effect so we will see) Unfortunately, this is one of those things which is vastly complicated by medical politics. On the one side are the pharmaceutical companies wanting more and more customers for their current drug, the doctors who benefit from their association with them, the FDA (who decides what drugs make it to market) - on the other, the doctors who sincerely want what's best for their patients and the patients themselves.
 
Dragonlady said:
You are correct in saying there are people genetically predisposed - there are many diseases to which people are predisposed - one of the biggies is coronary disease For those people more stringent measures are needed to bring it under control. All our bodies produce chol. and some produce more that others. Our bodies can react differently to different meds also. I go by the motto "if the consequences of not taking it are worse than the consequences of taking it, then take it and vice versa". I was an RN before I retired; we tend to fall into 2 categories - those who take a pill for every little complaint and those who rarely take even an aspirin. I tend to fall into the latter category. Over the years I have developed a strong distrust for the pharmaceutical companies - and some recent events have indicated that the distrust is not displaced.
Also there has been some new research which suggests Cholesterol by itself is not quite the villain it has been labeled;rather it is the HDL/LDL's that are the bigger villain.(I'm also distrustful of any statistics based research of medical cause and effect so we will see) Unfortunately, this is one of those things which is vastly complicated by medical politics. On the one side are the pharmaceutical companies wanting more and more customers for their current drug, the doctors who benefit from their association with them, the FDA (who decides what drugs make it to market) - on the other, the doctors who sincerely want what's best for their patients and the patients themselves.
Click to expand...

Ah... a fellow RN.. I'm still working.. I understand all that you say.. I guess in the end we have to take our knowledge and training and weigh all the facts to decide what we feel is the best course of action. I tend to fall on the side of medical research and what my Doctor tells me. I'm leery of home remedies.. and so called "natural cures"..
 
One of the many issues regarding medical "conditions" such as high cholesterol is that is it really high or a risk. Or is it someone's numerical standards/metrics. For years/DECADES they said eggs were bad for you and yet over the last few years their 'danger' has been down graded. Keep in mind with any standard or "number" medical or not industries use those numbers for liability reasons alone. In some cases they work and others they don't. It's part, not all of cya production line medicine. When I "lived" for the gym I was doing the Rocky routine including 3-5 raw egg ice cream shakes for several years and that was DECADES ago. I've been doing 2-3 scrambled or hard boiled daily since. I was told I would be pushing daisies rather than barbells last century.

http://www.latimes.com/science/scie...ry-guidelines-cholesterol-20150219-story.html

Yes chemically the body can over or under produce many a substance. But is worth turning one's body into a chemistry set.
 
Dragonlady said:
You are correct in saying there are people genetically predisposed - there are many diseases to which people are predisposed - one of the biggies is coronary disease For those people more stringent measures are needed to bring it under control. All our bodies produce chol. and some produce more that others. Our bodies can react differently to different meds also. I go by the motto "if the consequences of not taking it are worse than the consequences of taking it, then take it and vice versa". I was an RN before I retired; we tend to fall into 2 categories - those who take a pill for every little complaint and those who rarely take even an aspirin. I tend to fall into the latter category. Over the years I have developed a strong distrust for the pharmaceutical companies - and some recent events have indicated that the distrust is not displaced.
Also there has been some new research which suggests Cholesterol by itself is not quite the villain it has been labeled;rather it is the HDL/LDL's that are the bigger villain.(I'm also distrustful of any statistics based research of medical cause and effect so we will see) Unfortunately, this is one of those things which is vastly complicated by medical politics. On the one side are the pharmaceutical companies wanting more and more customers for their current drug, the doctors who benefit from their association with them, the FDA (who decides what drugs make it to market) - on the other, the doctors who sincerely want what's best for their patients and the patients themselves.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying and can agree. Looking into family history, no heart attacks or even disease. My triglycerides had been running high, but my total was 240 something I believe. Once a nurse called me and told me the doctor wants to put you on (whatever) you could have a stroke and blah, blah blah. I do understand the politics involved. While my gp doesn't believe there is an association with my problems and these meds, my gastroenterologist sure raised his eyebrows when I mentioned it. He leans more to science and is current on a lot of new treatments. Gp's tend to want to grab their pad and write
a script.

As far as "unconventional" and natural treatments, I'm certainly open-minded to that as long as there is no risk of "harm". I do have to be cautious--even supplements can be dangerous for people with certain conditions or mixed with certain meds.
 
I took cholesterol lowering drugs for about 9 months. During that time, I had horrific leg/foot cramps every night, about two weeks after starting them

Then I found I wasn't able to raise my arms high enough to wash my hair, after about four weeks.

I gave up on those drugs and it took me about another three months to get myself back to "normal".

I have spoken with my doctor, and he really thought that perhaps I wasn't a candidate for those drugs.

In fact, because of my age, and my gender, he couldn't really find that they would be of any benefit to me.

They had been tested on males, a great many years ago, aged between 24 and 45 years of age. Not a female in their 70's.
 
grannyjo said:
I took cholesterol lowering drugs for about 9 months. During that time, I had horrific leg/foot cramps every night, about two weeks after starting them

Then I found I wasn't able to raise my arms high enough to wash my hair, after about four weeks.

I gave up on those drugs and it took me about another three months to get myself back to "normal".

I have spoken with my doctor, and he really thought that perhaps I wasn't a candidate for those drugs.

In fact, because of my age, and my gender, he couldn't really find that they would be of any benefit to me.

They had been tested on males, a great many years ago, aged between 24 and 45 years of age. Not a female in their 70's.
Click to expand...

Once these drugs get out the lab and away from slides & mice the test groups and backgrounds are rarely adequately disclosed, analyzed or put into context.
 
WhatInThe said:
Once these drugs get out the lab and away from slides & mice the test groups and backgrounds are rarely adequately disclosed, analyzed or put into context.
Click to expand...


Read my post upthread.. Different statins work differently... Don't lump them all in the same boat.. The water solubles do not cause the same problems as the fat solubles... I know that from experience. Lipitor is a killer... not everyone can tolerate it. BUT the advantage of not running around with blood like sludge for me outweighs the concern of statins
 
Just got an email from the lab where I had blood drawn earlier this week & was horrified to see my cholesterol results extremely high. It's taken me months to feel better after being sick all summer, unable to eat or keep down most foods, loosing a great deal of weight, low blood pressure & a scary electrolyte imbalance. Initially diagnosed with IBS, then Gluten Intolerance. When my blood work started showing signs of improvement my pcp told me to start eating eggs, cheese & mi again. Soon after said it was ok for me eating beef, chicken, pork & turkey. My diet is almost back to normal. I know the pcp got the same lab results I did, but never mentioned my high cholesterol & only seemed concerned about my low vitamin D level. I've been careful with my diet, don't smoke, drink & exercise regularly. After reading about statin medications, afraid of risking the side effects of developing cancer, muscle pain/weakness, cognitive impairment or high glucose levels. Did read a few articles written by nutritional experts who think maintaining low blood pressure is more important than high cholesterol results. This is going to drive me crazy until I can speak to or meet with my dr. later next week. I'd appreciate hearing your opinions about this. Thanks.
 
maplebeez said:
Just got an email from the lab where I had blood drawn earlier this week & was horrified to see my cholesterol results extremely high. It's taken me months to feel better after being sick all summer, unable to eat or keep down most foods, loosing a great deal of weight, low blood pressure & a scary electrolyte imbalance. Initially diagnosed with IBS, then Gluten Intolerance. When my blood work started showing signs of improvement my pcp told me to start eating eggs, cheese & mi again. Soon after said it was ok for me eating beef, chicken, pork & turkey. My diet is almost back to normal. I know the pcp got the same lab results I did, but never mentioned my high cholesterol & only seemed concerned about my low vitamin D level. I've been careful with my diet, don't smoke, drink & exercise regularly. After reading about statin medications, afraid of risking the side effects of developing cancer, muscle pain/weakness, cognitive impairment or high glucose levels. Did read a few articles written by nutritional experts who think maintaining low blood pressure is more important than high cholesterol results. This is going to drive me crazy until I can speak to or meet with my dr. later next week. I'd appreciate hearing your opinions about this. Thanks.
Click to expand...


What was your Chol, LDL and HDL levels?
 
Here are those test results:

(1) Cholesterol 5.8 (normal 5.0)

(2) Cholesterol 238 (normal 200)

HDL 41 (normal 46)

Triglycerides 272 (normal 150)
 
I'll never take statins again...the side effects were extremely bad. I was able to take Repatha for a year (fantastic results, no side effects), but the agency that helped me with my copay no longer does, so I'll do without any meds.
 
maplebeez said:
Here are those test results:

(1) Cholesterol 5.8 (normal 5.0)

(2) Cholesterol 238 (normal 200)

HDL 41 (normal 46)

Triglycerides 272 (normal 150)
Click to expand...

Your triglycerides are quite high as well as the chol/HDL ratio, but your cholesterol isn't bad. Before the drug companies got into making statins an "ideal"chol of 240 was considered "normal". They are even looking now to dig up more clients by having the chol level lowered even more - >190. If you are able to do it, exercise and weight loss is a much safer approach.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top