Jump to content
Diabetes forums
  • Welcome To Diabetes Forums!

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today to contribute and support the site.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Ategeler

Crestor vs. Lipitor

Recommended Posts

Ategeler

My Endo just put me on Statins. She wants me to take Crestor vs. Lipotor b/c Lipitor has a tendency to pull HDL down while Crestor does not.

 

Has anyone else ever heard of this happening? I asked a Nurse Practitioner and she wasn't aware that Lipitor lowered HDL to a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShottleBop

You might take a look at Jenny Ruhl's blog, "Diabetes Update," for November 10, 2008. She describes a test in which Crestor was linked to an increased incidence of diabetes. (i found it by Googling "crestor raises blood sugar"; it was the fourth link down.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ategeler

Thanks ShottleBop for the heads up on the link. I have been a bit MIA lately so I haven't been privy to all the postings! I will check it out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dbaratta
My Endo just put me on Statins. She wants me to take Crestor vs. Lipotor b/c Lipitor has a tendency to pull HDL down while Crestor does not.

 

Has anyone else ever heard of this happening? I asked a Nurse Practitioner and she wasn't aware that Lipitor lowered HDL to a point.

 

I am on crestor and it works great for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShottleBop

Episode No. 308 of the Livin' La Vida Low Carb Show (google "living la vida low carb podcast" and click on "The Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show With Jimmy Moore", which should be the first link): an interview with Dr. Duane Graveline, master of the spacedoc.net website, regarding the damage that statins can do:

 

Today, Jimmy shares his conversation with a bonafide hero of space science who is now devoted to fixing one important aspect of medical science. The man is Dr. Duane Graveline, and the issue he is so passionately concerned with is the little-acknowleged but major problem of Statin over-prescription.

 

Empirical experience, followed by almost a decade of researching the published data has led Dr. Graveline to the conclusion that statins are effective almost by accident, and that – at the doses doctors currently recommend – cause major, permanent damage to human mitochondrial DNA, resulting in loss of strength, join pain, memory loss and more.

 

Topics discussed include: the falseness of the cholesterol theory of Atherosclerosis, the real reason small amounts of statins can help Atherosclerosis, why CoQ-10 is a MUST for anyone taking a statin, Why you cannot buy a pill with a statin and CoQ-10 together, the 7 “critical sugars” (including glyco-protein), the importance of Vitamin E from tocotrienol, and the importance of vitamin D and Omega 6 supplementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elroum
Episode No. 308 of the Livin' La Vida Low Carb Show (google "living la vida low carb podcast" and click on "The Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Show With Jimmy Moore", which should be the first link): an interview with Dr. Duane Graveline, master of the spacedoc.net website, regarding the damage that statins can do:

 

Spacedoc has an amazing personal story to share about his experience with Lipitor. His book is exceptional and shocking at the same time "Lipitor, Thief of memory". you guys may want to check it out. Also I found a great publication by Glyn Wainwright called "Cholesterol lowering therapy and cell membranes. Stable plaque at the expense of unstable membranes?" It mentions, among others, the experiments that associate statins with elevated risk of Diabetes mentioned previously. I can send it by email if anyone is interested.

Finally this shocking article may make you consider why you should be taking statins in the first place

How Arteriosclerosis Occurs - Article Content Directory | Free Article Content

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stuartanstis
Hidden

I vote for Lipitor, I used it last year, if you want to know more about it, check this site Lipitor

Share this post


Link to post
ShottleBop
Spacedoc has an amazing personal story to share about his experience with Lipitor. His book is exceptional and shocking at the same time "Lipitor, Thief of memory". you guys may want to check it out. Also I found a great publication by Glyn Wainwright called "Cholesterol lowering therapy and cell membranes. Stable plaque at the expense of unstable membranes?" It mentions, among others, the experiments that associate statins with elevated risk of Diabetes mentioned previously. I can send it by email if anyone is interested.

Finally this shocking article may make you consider why you should be taking statins in the first place

How Arteriosclerosis Occurs - Article Content Directory | Free Article Content

 

Link to "Cholesterol lowering therapy and cell membranes. Stable plaque at the expense of unstable membranes?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ljjhouser

I used Lipitor for a while. It was very good at lowering my cholestrol, but I could not continue taking statins. Muscle pains. So, for 20 years I could not lower cholestrol (hereditary). Had stents last year (5). The new cardio group found my vit d very low - increased it and now I use simvastatin. It seems to do very well. And it is cheap - about $7 a month.

I know there is a lot of discussion about statins. But maybe there should also be a lot of discussion about Atherosclerosis.

 

There is an interesting clinical trial relating to simvastatin and and Type 2 diabetics without cornary diease.

It is here: Diabetes and Combined Lipid Therapy Regimen (DIACOR) Study - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

 

Short form of results:

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine the effect of statin-fibrate combination therapy on inflammatory biomarkers in patients with diabetes. BACKGROUND: Atherosclerosis is a long-term, chronic inflammatory disease that is exacerbated in patients with diabetes.

 

RESULTS: At 12 weeks, median hsCRP was significantly reduced (-14.6%, p = 0.004) from baseline, but the effect did not differ between treatments. The effect was greatest among patients with baseline hsCRP levels >2.0 mg/l (fenofibrate = -18.9%, p = 0.002 vs. baseline; simvastatin = -24.8%, p < 0.0001; combination = -27.3%, p = 0.002). Likewise, median Lp-PLA(2) levels in the overall study population were significantly reduced (-16.8%, p < 0.0001), and the effect did not differ among treatments. This effect also was greatest among patients with increased baseline levels of Lp-PLA(2) greater than the median of 320.9 ng/ml (fenofibrate = -41.3%, p < 0.0001; simvastatin = -47.5%, p < 0.0001; combination = -46.8%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Simvastatin, fenofibrate, and combination therapy each lowered hsCRP and Lp-PLA(2). These anti-inflammatory effects were most pronounced among patients with increased baseline levels. Combination therapy was no more effective than either form of monotherapy. (The DIACOR Study; Diabetes and Combined Lipid Therapy Regimen (DIACOR) Study - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov.

 

Seems both drugs lowered inflamation, but there was no improvement using both as a combination. i.e. we can conclude simvastatin lowers inflamation without the aid of other drugs relating to this cause.

 

I am sure there are studies with Lipitor, but I did not find them yet.

 

Later, Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fgummett
I used Lipitor for a while. It was very good at lowering my cholestrol...
No question that statins are effective at artificially lowering cholesterol levels, but as cholesterol is vital for our health, I have to ask... why should we want to artificially lower cholesterol levels?

 

...I know there is a lot of discussion about statins. But maybe there should also be a lot of discussion about Atherosclerosis...
The only association I can find is that atherosclerotic plaque in (not on) the artery walls is in large part made up of cholesterol. No matter what we may have been lead to believe; that does not show that cholesterol causes atherosclerosis... in much the same way that fibrin, platelets and other clotting agents do not cause the cuts on our skin which they scab over in an effort to heal us.

 

The often used analogy is: fire-fighters being 100% associated with house-fires... does that mean fire-fighters cause house-fires?

 

...Seems both drugs lowered inflammation...
This in my view is the key -- nothing to do with "high cholesterol" levels -- inflammation... likely caused by high BGs or a diet high in refined carbohydrates... just look at what these do to our teeth and gums. Where are the studies comparing statins to Aspirin (ASA) in this regard OR perhaps the studies showing improvement of inflammation (and lipid changes) resulting from dietary changes?

 

For that matter where are the studies showing that the cholesterol-lowering effect of statin has any effect on long term survival?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ljjhouser

I did see a clinical study comparing statins to asprin. But unfortunately, they refused to post results.

 

Hi Frank. I had to laugh. I knew posting a clinical study (right up your interest) would draw comments from you. Ha!.

 

I did find a lot of studies, but no long term (so far) relating to decreased incidence of events.

 

But we can be certian of one thing, blocked arteries brings unpleasent results. How we got there and what to do about it is the question. And I also agree with you about inflamation being the key. Wonder if there is a study directly relating cholestrol type or density or numbers to inflamation?

 

Another drug I have not had time to look into is Plavix. It is expensive and almost ALWAY prescribed with stents to prevent reoccurance of blockage. Later, Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fgummett
I had to laugh. I knew posting a clinical study (right up your interest) would draw comments from you.
Thanks Larry... I guess I am quite dependable (predictable) in that regard :cool:

 

But we can be certain of one thing, blocked arteries brings unpleasant results. How we got there and what to do about it is the question.
No argument there... but even that image of "blocked arteries" -- as if our arteries are like the plumbing in our houses -- is quite misleading. What I find I have to continually push back against is the immediate assumption -- into which we have been brainwashed -- that the plaque is caused by "high cholesterol". Even Ancel Keys, who started the whole lipid hypothesis, came around to realise that is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fgummett
Dr Malcolm Kendrick speaks about World Health Organisation data gathered in their MONI-CA study. MONItoring Trends in CArdiovascular Disease

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kgm0612

I was on Lipitor for many, many years with very good results. I have a family history of high cholesterol.

 

Three years ago, my cholesterol started creeping up, so my endo took me off Lipitor and put me on Crestor. I have to say, my cholesterol levels have never been better.

 

I also want to add I have been fortunate in NOT experiencing any side effects from either. Good Luck!

 

Karen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fgummett

I am glad that you and your Doctor are happy that you have artificially lowered your "cholesterol levels"... it makes everyone happy when they see a measurable result, and I am especially glad that you have not experienced any side-effects from these drugs. For the record I am being sincere.

 

I would draw your attention to the above presentation by Dr Kendrick, based on data collected by the WHO around the World, showing absolutely no relationship between cholesterol levels and heart disease... none at all. I am sorry that this causes confusion and even hostility but based on the simplest of facts I have to ask why we are all in such a rush to lower our cholesterol levels? It is as if we have all suspended belief, in order to keep this myth alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
notme

I would really hesitate making such a strong statement and using the term "myth." We have been pretty emphatic with other members who use those types of terms.

 

I personally don't take statins even though I have higher than normal total cholesterol number and a family history of stroke. That is my personal choice and I have been able to lower my LDL by diet. My HDL is amazingly good, so I made my decision to stay off statins. My doctor initially was not happy, but he is now more understanding about my choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fgummett

I apologise if I have overstated... I am trying to strike a balance against statements such as made above by Karen (I mean nothing personal against you Karen... many people say the same kind of things and yours is simply the most recent example)

I was on Lipitor for many, many years with very good results.
I am making an assumption but if that "very good result" was simply lower cholesterol levels -- with all that implies and suggests (despite strong and increasing evidence to the contrary) -- why is that statement not seen as just as emphatic as mine?

 

Perhaps because it is the "accepted view" it slips under the radar while mine is seen as controversial. It seems that the more people repeat "accepted" things, the stronger they get.

 

Rationalism/science is not about consensus or public opinion but instead ought be based on evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ljjhouser

OK - Here we go. Ha!

At this point Frank, I cannot disagree with you. But I can also say that I have no evidence to support your belief that cholestrol has nothing to do with heart related events. I have searched clinical trials to find imperical evidence - not there yet either way.

 

But, I will have say I (and probably you would also) do not consider U Tube entries (or My Space, or Tweetie, or Face .... well you know) and any value in developing conclusions relating to treatment posibilities. I also wish he had cited specifie locations of the WHO study he was referring to - but he did not.

And to add, the WHO is far from a research organization. I might award it the same weight as I might give the ADA relating to "safe" numbers of BG. Not much value, to me anyway.

 

OK - still looking for the "real thing." Hope we both find it. I was at the hospital (St. Lukes Northland). I asked for imperical proof. They told there was a lot of it. (of course) I told them to email me links to clinical evidence. I would like to read it. (clinical proof linking cholestrol to heart events).

 

More to learn. Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fgummett

The WHO study was under the acronym of MONICA.

 

I broadly agree about equating WHO with ADA (large monolithic, conservative establishments) but remember that much of the low-fat dogma and lipid hypothesis was based on Ancel Keys flawed Seven Countries study (it was really Twenty-Two Countries but the others didn't fit his theory), so this study seemed appropriate to refute that.

 

While I agree on your assessment of YouTube etc... presentations, there seems to be a need to strike a balance between overload with clinical studies (for which I have been rebuked on DF in the past) and easily accessible information. Dr Kendrick is (in my view) a respected professional with an interest in this area. There are so many 30 second "sound-bytes" out there with misinformation that I am glad to find a rare one that has what I believe a basis in evidence.

 

As to your search, I would ask why after so many decades it is so hard to find conclusive studies linking cholesterol and heart disease... the hypothesis has been around since at least the 1970s if not the 1950s... so where's the beef!

 

If a theory is correct, evidence usually piles up in favour of it... not the other way around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
plattb1

FWIW, I recently made the decision to stop taking statins. I was on pravachol for several years, then crestor for a good many more.

 

While both were effective in lowering my cholesterol, I became increasingly concerned about taking them over time - especially as I read more & more about how the anti-inflammatory properties are more beneficial than actually lowering cholesterol levels - and that baby aspirin will do that just as well & less expensively.

 

Recently, my employer offered a High Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein Test as an option in our health screening & I took advantage of that. It is supposed to be predictive of cardiovascular disease to some extent, although there is some controversy about how useful it is. This is the explanation provided with the results (which were normal):

 

C-Reactive Protein is an inflammatory marker in the blood stream. The hs-CRP is specific for inflammation in the blood vessels. A hs-CRP is sometimes done along with

a lipid profile to help predict a persons risk of a heart attack. In years to come, C-reactive protein may also prove to be a potential marker for predicting coronary artery disease and stroke which are closely associated with inflammation of the blood vessels.

 

So, I have tapered off the crestor & do not plan to refill my prescriptions unless I see something in my labs or learn something that significantly changes my mind.

 

I guess I'm an experiment. We'll see how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SailAwayAK

thank you all for this topic and great discussion. I was placed on Crestor and had side effects of muscle pain and increased depression from them. The doctor then wanted me to use Lipitor but I have yet to begin that regimen due to other medication changes.

 

What I am curious about is Lovaza , an Omega-3 they are also suggesting. I figured it fits in this whole Cholesterol debate and thought I would ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.