A couple of days ago, I commented on some research that found statin use in young stroke victims reduced their chances of having a second stroke. With support of several doctors, Zocor (the trade name of a brand of simvistatin, which was one of the most used statins in the study), jumped on the research and is now promoting the idea that statins (specifically, Zocor) should be made available (and, so I can assume) actively marketed to younger people as a prophylactic to prevent stroke and improve their cardiovascular health.
I'm of two minds with this one. In the first place, they (the researchers) have "proven" that statin use in younger populations tend to reduce the risk of asecond stroke. Note the term second stroke - so a bit of an assumption that this should hold true for first strokes - although this should be a natural, and logical, assumption.
In the second place, they chose to ignore the very real, and documented, side effects from Zocor (any statin has these similar side effects). They can include intercerebral hemorrhage, myopathy and rhabdomyolysis (which can lead to kidney failure - there are several outstanding lawsuits with Zocor).
In our zeal to eliminate as many stroke risk factors as possible, in combination with the corporate zeal to find any way to increase the bottom line, I'm wondering if we are jumping at conclusions that aren't supported by facts, and that may cloud the actual risk/benefit of our decisions. I also question the medical profession's ability to make this decision for us - I think it's been usurped by the pharmaceutical industry - training about this stuff, or perhaps the interpretation of research is done more by pharmaceutical reps than by doctors. We've allowed them to become the prime source of education for our doctors - that's like making Ford our prime source of information about cars.
I'm of two minds with this one. In the first place, they (the researchers) have "proven" that statin use in younger populations tend to reduce the risk of asecond stroke. Note the term second stroke - so a bit of an assumption that this should hold true for first strokes - although this should be a natural, and logical, assumption.
In the second place, they chose to ignore the very real, and documented, side effects from Zocor (any statin has these similar side effects). They can include intercerebral hemorrhage, myopathy and rhabdomyolysis (which can lead to kidney failure - there are several outstanding lawsuits with Zocor).
In our zeal to eliminate as many stroke risk factors as possible, in combination with the corporate zeal to find any way to increase the bottom line, I'm wondering if we are jumping at conclusions that aren't supported by facts, and that may cloud the actual risk/benefit of our decisions. I also question the medical profession's ability to make this decision for us - I think it's been usurped by the pharmaceutical industry - training about this stuff, or perhaps the interpretation of research is done more by pharmaceutical reps than by doctors. We've allowed them to become the prime source of education for our doctors - that's like making Ford our prime source of information about cars.
No comments:
Post a Comment