3 ms·

Statin drugs are nearly entirely generic now, with a 3-month supply being $12, made by competing manufacturers. [1] This is not a profit source for big pharma l

Statin drugs are nearly entirely generic now, with a 3-month supply being $12, made by competing manufacturers. [1] This is not a profit source for big pharma like you might think. Statin drugs have fewer side-effects than OTC painkillers. (Heard this on NPR the other day). 1 - http://www.consumerreports.org/health/best-buy-drugs/statins.htm http://www.consumerreports.org/health/best-buy-drugs/statins...

tremendo 13y ago
33 million new americans on the drug[1], $12 every three months, that's about $1.5 billion dollars a year of new business, by just issuing a new "guideline". In just one country. Not a profit source? I don't agree. Edited to add reference to the 33 million new users. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-guidelines-could-have-far-more-americans-taking-statin-drugs-for-cholesterol/2013/11/12/7f249318-4be4-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-gu...
- carbocation 13y ago
  1) Statins save lives. 2) The people making the recommendations are not the people making money off of the drugs. 3) $1.5 billion is a minuscule slice of the US healthcare market. 4) At $0.13 per pill, it's kind of hard imagining a non-subsidized price getting much lower. What could be done to assuage your concerns?
  - tremendo 13y ago
    1) We could go into a rabbit hole with this, I'm not going to, just will remark that there are plenty of credible (subjective I know) who believe statins at best replace one malady with another, they do lower cholesterol while not caring why it's high in the first place. They help people who have already have had a cardiac event, and up to 50 years old. Not older men, and in no case women. 2) No conflicts of interest? 3) I made no claim about slice size, it's still $1.5 Billion per year for one country, and that's not insignificant. 4) so, each pill is cheap.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 13y ago
> Statin drugs have fewer side-effects than OTC painkillers. (Heard this on NPR the other day). This is actually true for a lot of drug classes. Tylenol (acetaminophen) has such a low injurious dose that it'd probably have difficulty getting approved today.
lennel 13y ago
as someone who has high cholesterol and at the same time gets side effects from statins (body attacks itself via lichen planus when on statins for several months) it sucks to hear this.
npsimons 13y ago
The question still remains: how many people really need to be on statins? I have genetically high cholesterol. My mother, and her father, are both on cholesterol meds. But I don't want to be on any medication I don't need, to the point that I (perhaps irrationally) fear being on statins. So, I've tried other things. Diet doesn't seem to make too much of a difference (although one summer where I drank vast quantities of fruit juice seemed to help, but then you run the risk of diabetes), but exercise does, and that I can do. Only thing is, bodies adapt, and now I have to watch out for sports injuries, as I can only seem to get my cholesterol down to mid-170s by hitting a BPM of 160+ for a bare minimum of 30 minutes every day. Much less than every day, and my cholesterol starts creeping up towards 200+ again . . . I don't mind the exercise - it's good for many things. But if I damage something, to the point where I'm not exercising for months (or even just weeks), should I be put on statins? Based on this article, I would refuse to be put on statins.
- carbocation 13y ago
  From a cardiovascular risk-minimization standpoint, many people should be on statins. From a pure preference standpoint (e.g., I prefer not to take pills, I prefer not to spend $4/month on pharmaceuticals, etc), many of those people will choose not to be on statins. Their health will probabilistically be worse for this decision; however, health is but one of many competing Goods that people might choose to maximize.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
r0h1n 13y ago
Coincidentally, I recently came across this contrarian view of statins which says that they aren't really all that benign as we think: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2013/10/how-statin-drugs-really-lower-cholesterol-and-kill-you-one-cell-at-a-time/ http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2013/10/how-statin-drugs-really-l... I haven't read the book, nor can I vouch for the arguments. But take it FWIW.

tremendo 13y ago

33 million new americans on the drug[1], $12 every three months, that's about $1.5 billion dollars a year of new business, by just issuing a new "guideline". In just one country. Not a profit source? I don't agree. Edited to add reference to the 33 million new users. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-guidelines-could-have-far-more-americans-taking-statin-drugs-for-cholesterol/2013/11/12/7f249318-4be4-11e3-be6b-d3d28122e6d4_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-gu...

carbocation 13y ago
1) Statins save lives. 2) The people making the recommendations are not the people making money off of the drugs. 3) $1.5 billion is a minuscule slice of the US healthcare market. 4) At $0.13 per pill, it's kind of hard imagining a non-subsidized price getting much lower. What could be done to assuage your concerns?
- tremendo 13y ago
  1) We could go into a rabbit hole with this, I'm not going to, just will remark that there are plenty of credible (subjective I know) who believe statins at best replace one malady with another, they do lower cholesterol while not caring why it's high in the first place. They help people who have already have had a cardiac event, and up to 50 years old. Not older men, and in no case women. 2) No conflicts of interest? 3) I made no claim about slice size, it's still $1.5 Billion per year for one country, and that's not insignificant. 4) so, each pill is cheap.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ceejayoz 13y ago

> Statin drugs have fewer side-effects than OTC painkillers. (Heard this on NPR the other day). This is actually true for a lot of drug classes. Tylenol (acetaminophen) has such a low injurious dose that it'd probably have difficulty getting approved today.

lennel 13y ago

as someone who has high cholesterol and at the same time gets side effects from statins (body attacks itself via lichen planus when on statins for several months) it sucks to hear this.

npsimons 13y ago

The question still remains: how many people really need to be on statins? I have genetically high cholesterol. My mother, and her father, are both on cholesterol meds. But I don't want to be on any medication I don't need, to the point that I (perhaps irrationally) fear being on statins. So, I've tried other things. Diet doesn't seem to make too much of a difference (although one summer where I drank vast quantities of fruit juice seemed to help, but then you run the risk of diabetes), but exercise does, and that I can do. Only thing is, bodies adapt, and now I have to watch out for sports injuries, as I can only seem to get my cholesterol down to mid-170s by hitting a BPM of 160+ for a bare minimum of 30 minutes every day. Much less than every day, and my cholesterol starts creeping up towards 200+ again . . . I don't mind the exercise - it's good for many things. But if I damage something, to the point where I'm not exercising for months (or even just weeks), should I be put on statins? Based on this article, I would refuse to be put on statins.

carbocation 13y ago
From a cardiovascular risk-minimization standpoint, many people should be on statins. From a pure preference standpoint (e.g., I prefer not to take pills, I prefer not to spend $4/month on pharmaceuticals, etc), many of those people will choose not to be on statins. Their health will probabilistically be worse for this decision; however, health is but one of many competing Goods that people might choose to maximize.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

r0h1n 13y ago

Coincidentally, I recently came across this contrarian view of statins which says that they aren't really all that benign as we think: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2013/10/how-statin-drugs-really-lower-cholesterol-and-kill-you-one-cell-at-a-time/ http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2013/10/how-statin-drugs-really-l... I haven't read the book, nor can I vouch for the arguments. But take it FWIW.