Japan biochemist who discovered statins, Akira Endo, dies at 90

He sure helped me. I used to have to take a statin once a day and now I'm alive, not having to take them with attention to the diet and a little exercise. Thank you Mr. Endo. You done good.

One of the great life-extending discoveries of the last hundred years. Let's hope we have a few more Akira Endos over the next hundred.

What a lifesaver. I have taken statins for well over ten years. I started taking them for cholesterol control and once I changed my diet, my doctor suggested I keep taking them for their heart benefits. Now I have low cholesterol and am not worried about heart health, either. Thanks Dr. Endo. I hope I live as long as you did. Bon voyage.

RIP I'm sure he was a wonderful researcher who has helped some people.

Recent research, however, has cast doubt on the efficacy of statins, demonstrating that they may not considerably increase the longevity of elderly people without heart disease, that the benefits of their use may be exaggerated given the small absolute risk reduction relative to risk, and that they may be associated with higher risks like diabetes and muscular weakness. These findings point to the need for a more nuanced approach to statin prescription.

Recent research, however, has cast doubt on the efficacy of statins, demonstrating that they may not considerably increase the longevity of elderly people without heart disease, that the benefits of their use may be exaggerated given the small absolute risk reduction relative to risk, and that they may be associated with higher risks like diabetes and muscular weakness. These findings point to the need for a more nuanced approach to statin prescription.

Has it? Which respectable medical organizations are saying that statin effectiveness is in doubt?

How many lives did he save?

StrangerlandToday  10:34 am JST

Recent research, however, has cast doubt on the efficacy of statins, demonstrating that they may not considerably increase the longevity of elderly people without heart disease, that the benefits of their use may be exaggerated given the small absolute risk reduction relative to risk, and that they may be associated with higher risks like diabetes and muscular weakness. These findings point to the need for a more nuanced approach to statin prescription.

Has it? Which respectable medical organizations are saying that statin effectiveness is in doubt?

Just search Google, Google Scholar, or something similar. Naturally, the pharmaceutical companies and their associates will refute any of this evidence, but their motivations are clear.

Here are a few of them:

Statin Therapy in the Elderly: A Review

Publication Date: September 2018

Publication Name: JAMA Internal Medicine

Conclusion: This review highlighted the limited evidence supporting the use of statins in older adults and raised questions about the balance between benefits and harms, particularly in this population.

Statins for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events and Mortality in Old and Very Old Adults with and Without Type 2 Diabetes: Retrospective Cohort Study

Publication Date: April 2019

Publication Name: BMJ Open

Conclusion: The study found limited evidence supporting the use of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular events and mortality in older adults, both with and without type 2 diabetes.

Association Between Statin Use and Cardiovascular Events After Carotid Artery Revascularization

Publication Date: May 2018

Publication Name: JAMA Surgery

Conclusion: This study found that statin therapy was not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes after carotid artery revascularization in patients without established cardiovascular disease.

Effect of Statin Therapy on Mortality in Older Adults Hospitalized with Coronary Artery Disease: A Propensity-Adjusted Analysis

Publication Date: June 2018

Publication Name: American Journal of Medicine

Conclusion: The study suggested that statin therapy was not associated with reduced mortality in older adults hospitalized with coronary artery disease.

Statin Therapy for Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

Publication Date: November 2016

Publication Name: JAMA Internal Medicine

Conclusion: This study suggested that statin therapy for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease may be of uncertain net value in individuals with a low 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.

I didn’t ask for studies. I asked

Which respectable medical organizations are saying that statin effectiveness is in doubt?

Are there any?

I have found that high-potency EPA/DHA supplements, along with excercise, works for me. But, my wife needs a low-dose statin to keep her blood lipids in check. Natural methods are not very effective.

For some people, diet and exercise are not very effective. Their bodies are genetically pre-disposed to high cholesterol levels. For those people, statins are the best or only method that works.

He was a great researcher and has undoubtedly helped many lower their cholesterol.

However, I am not sure statins are as beneficial as they seem—at least not for everyone.

My medical buddy says that young doctors today are reluctant to prescribe drugs excessively because they feel under pressure to do so.

Despite the fact that my family and I both have high cholesterol, we do not take statins because there are safer, non-drug-causing alternatives to lower cholesterol (for some people).

It seems to me all medicines have some kinds of side effects. Statins might have worsened and killed some people but saved much more people all over the world.

StrangerlandToday  10:51 am JST

I didn’t ask for studies. I asked

Which respectable medical organizations are saying that statin effectiveness is in doubt?

Are there any?

Yes, the Archives of Internal Medicine and BMC Medicine are two that come to mind.

They do not refute the efficacy of statins for certain people but doubt the widespread use of them (i.e for anyone with high cholesterol)

Now we’re actually getting somewhere. Links?

"Any respectable medical organizations suggesting Oreo therapy is the preferable way to manage statins?"

No one is suggesting that. The point of the study was to prove how little benefit statins have on their stated goal.

No one is suggesting that. The point of the study was to prove how little benefit statins have on their stated goal.

Any respectable medical organizations that have come to that conclusion?

Any respectable medical organizations that have come to that conclusion?

Again, what's more important, the evidence-based veracity of the information or who says it?

Again, what's more important, the evidence-based veracity of the information or who says it?

The consensus of medical organizations that read multiple peer reviewed studies, and have discourse among the experts to come to a science based conclusion providing the best recommended moves based on currently accepted science, is what is more important than reading a study or two and deciding you know more than said organizations.

Any respectable medical organizations that have come to that conclusion?

Are there any respectable medical organizations?

Why do you assume they know and speak the truth?

Isn't it more important to know what the facts are, rather than depend on some bureaucrats?

Are there any respectable medical organizations?

Why do you assume they know and speak the truth?

Truth? What is truth in science ? Are you referring to currently accepted science? Or if it's something else, you'll have to qualify what it is, as truth isn't really a concept in science that has context, unless you are claiming people are lying about currently accepted science, whereby they would know the science to show one thing and yet say another.

Now as for why I choose listen to them - well they are respected medical experts, who survey large numbers of papers, and have robust discussions amongst the experts to put forth their recommendations for how to proceed under currently accepted science.

Are you suggesting that listening to some internet hacks, or reading a few studies and deciding one knows more than these organizations of experts is the logical way to make decisions about one's health?

I suppose if you think that's how you want to live your life... but no thank you. I'll stick to the experts, rather than internet hacks thanks.

Such a quiet, dedicated hero who received very little if any financial reward for his discoveries - and didn't seem bitter about that. Another obit has this: He once looked back on his career and said he had a "pleasant feeling like after I exercise."

Wow look at the down votes. I wonder how many healthy people here, if they discovered high cholesterol levels would not take them and live with that risk. Most obese people, if they live a sedentary life, may promise to stop eating beef, hamburgers and sausages pizzas, kebabs, and promise to go to the gym, and then find it was easier to say the right stuff, than actually live it. (With best of intentions).

Every drug has side effects, the truth is does the benefit out way the risk. It’s not “this is bad” or “this is good”. Are antibiotics so evil? When it can result in antibiotic resistant infections? Or polio vaccines that saved millions if not billions, because a few ended up getting “polio” as an extremely rare side effect? We need a more nuanced approach, operations can save you but sometimes some people don’t come through.

Association Between Statin Use and Cardiovascular Events After Carotid Artery Revascularization

> Publication Date: May 2018

> Publication Name: JAMA Surgery

> Conclusion: This study found that statin therapy was not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes after carotid artery revascularization in patients without established cardiovascular disease.

Might as well take a look here's what I saw at a quick glance

J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Aug 21; 7(16): e009745. Published online 2018 Aug 8. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.009745

PMCID: PMC6201401PMID: 30369318

Association Between Statin Use and Cardiovascular Events After Carotid Artery Revascularization

Mohamad A. Hussain, MD, PhD, 1 , 5 Gustavo Saposnik, MD, MSc, 2 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 9 Sneha Raju, MD, 5 Konrad Salata, MD, 1 , 5 Muhammad Mamdani, PharmD, MA, MPH, 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 Jack V. Tu, MD, PhD, 6 , 7 , 9 , 12 Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, 13 Subodh Verma, MD, PhD, 3 , 4 , 5 , 10 and Mohammed Al‐Omran, MD, MSccorresponding author 1 , 4 , 5 , 10 , 11

Abstract

Background

Statins are commonly used for the prevention of cardiovascular events; however, statins are underutilized in patients with noncoronary atherosclerosis. We sought to establish the rates of statin use in patients with carotid artery disease and to examine the association between statin therapy and outcomes after carotid revascularization.

> Methods and Results

In this population‐level retrospective cohort study, we identified all individuals aged ≥66 years who underwent carotid endarterectomy or stenting in Ontario, Canada (2002–2014). The primary outcome was a composite of 1‐year stroke, myocardial infarction, or death (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events). Five‐year risks were also examined. Adjusted hazard ratios were computed using inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity scores. A total of 7893 of 10 723 patients (73.6%) who underwent carotid revascularization were on preprocedural statin therapy; moderate‐ or high‐dose therapy was utilized by 7384 patients (68.9%). The composite rate of 1‐year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was lower among statin users (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.70–0.83). Patients who were on persistent long‐term statin therapy after the carotid procedure continued to experience significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 5 years (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval, 0.71–0.80). The beneficial associations with statin use were observed regardless of type of carotid revascularization procedure, carotid artery symptom status, or statin dose.

> Conclusions

Continuous statin therapy was associated with a 25% lower risk of long‐term adverse cardiovascular events in patients with significant carotid disease. Along with other supportive evidence, statins should be considered in patients undergoing carotid revascularization, and efforts are required to increase statin use in this undertreated population.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6201401/#:~:text=Consistent%20use%20of%20statin%20therapy,5%20years%20of%20follow%E2%80%90up.

Any thoughts?

Conflicting reports on the benefits and potential harms of statins in recent years have prompted some people prescribed the drugs to stop taking them.

That includes me.

Nasty stuff!

No comment at all from those people who care deeply about the facts?

Recent research, however, has cast doubt on the efficacy of statins, demonstrating that they may not considerably increase the longevity of elderly people without heart disease, that the benefits of their use may be exaggerated given the small absolute risk reduction relative to risk, and that they may be associated with higher risks like diabetes and muscular weakness. These findings point to the need for a more nuanced approach to statin prescription.

Not really no, that is a huge exaggeration from a fringe group of people that do not represent how the actual medical consensus consider the benefit from the use of statins, mostly based on out of context limited studies that are extrapolated out of all usefulness by people trying to push for an agenda that is not public health.

An explanation of a recent example that was heavily pushed in social media and that many professionals clearly debunked.

https://www.dralo.net/blog/statin-4-days

Just search Google, Google Scholar, or something similar. Naturally, the pharmaceutical companies and their associates will refute any of this evidence, but their motivations are clear.

Searched, found exactly zero scientific evidence, therefore your claim has been debunked.

When you leave the collection of evidence to others you end up having to accept when those other people do not find the evidence you need to prove your point.

The rest of your references are well known, but that includes their limitations, for example

Conclusion: The study found limited evidence supporting the use of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular events and mortality in older adults, both with and without type 2 diabetes.

It is well described that the protective effect of statins is not only cummulative but that it becomes more and more important the more time it is used, so following patients at the end of their life inevitably leads to underestimation of the protective effect, not only because it fails to follow the patients for long enough to find the total effect, but because it assumes the protection for the intervention group begins at the beginning of the study. Exaggerating for clarity is like comparing differences in survival between groups vaccinated for measles but making the study in groups of people over 90yo, as if the effect began at that point.

It is not difficult to find studies that could find no effect, for anything you can think about, even things that have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt to be effective (from vaccination to hygienic measures) after all by simple statistics this is bound to happen, studies can also have important limitations (time, money, number of participants) or be made without proper care. At the end the result is the same, they fail to find something that is there. What professionals and experts do is not to cherry pick these studies but examine the whole of the literature about that intervention which is what will lead to the correct conclusion.

Antiscientific propaganda does the opposite, from 500 reports about something they collect the 10 that find something different from the rest and present them as if it was the only evidence available. That is why is so important to check what every respected institution of the world says about something, it is beyond imaginable that the people working on them are all wrong (or poisoning their friends and family for money) so they are simply much more likely to be correct.

Yes, the Archives of Internal Medicine and BMC Medicine are two that come to mind.

Where have both institutions supported your claim? one thing is to publish studies that even if limited could help in the understanding of the value of statins, another completely different is to claim they support the drugs are worthless, not even the author of your reference says so.

An Aug. 17, 2010 article in Archives of Internal Medicine found little evidence for statins' benefit on all-cause mortality for high-risk primary prevention. Author Kausik K. Ray, MD, said that both pro- and anti-statin factions have tried to use his results to make their points.

However, he cautioned that the results should not be used as a reason to stop using statins. Instead, he suggested that internists use the results to tell patients that statins can reduce the risk of heart attacks but not other causes of deaths.

That is completely different from what you claim

Again, what's more important, the evidence-based veracity of the information or who says it?

Valid scientific authorities are precisely because they have a very high standard of evidence, much much higher than single individuals, which is why they are a much better reference as well. An appeal to a valid authority on the field is an appeal to scientific evidence of the highest quality available.

Hre may not be a household name but he's done more for humanity than many of us will ever know. May he RIP.

No comment at all from those people who care deeply about the facts?

You posted a study and asked a bunch of internet posters to interpret it? That’s the road to baaaaad medicine.

What have any medical organizations concluded from the study you posted?