Why hasn't this been reported?

Posted: Jul 26, 2007

It is hard to evaluate this report. The reported increase of .1% in the incidence of cancer could just be some sort of covariable. E.g., the incidence of cancer increases with age and pateints on statins live longer. Similarly, perhaps the same pathogenic process that leads to use of higher-dose statins also is involved a little in carcingenesis.

Posted: Jul 26, 2007

An interesting side story:

Studies are showing that Vitamin D is a cheaper, safer alternative to statins.

Vitamin D deficiency is epidemic since we've become so afraid of the sun. Deficiency has been linked in many reliable studies to cancer, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol, MS and the list goes on.

Vitamin D has been in the news quite a bit lately and I think when the public finally realizes its full importance, Big Pharma is going to take a big hit. Supplements are under attack, but you can't make sunshine illegal.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/research.shtml
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16815382&dopt=AbstractPlus

Posted: Jul 30, 2007

There have been hundreds of studies done. All showed that the lower the LDL the better. But how low is to low? People on high dose statins, usually have other comorbid diesease states, like obesity, a direct link to cancer risk. Give me some hard numbers.
By the way, the media is at war with the pharma industry in case you haven't noticed. So if more docs thought this was true, it would be a MAJOR headline.
Sorry...you lose!!

Posted: Aug 4, 2007

Pharmaking is absolutely right. It fits right into the "epidemiological association of questionably scientific merit" mold that usually makes for great primetime "health news" reporting. That it wasn't widely reported begs all sorts of conspiracy theories.

The wording of the abstract is surprisingly grave if one parses it carefully. I have a considerably more sanguine interpretation of all this. The kind of statistical fine-tuning used to demonstrate a correlation here:

"...significant inverse association between cancer incidence and achieved LDL-C levels, whereas no such association was demonstrated with percent LDL-C reduction or absolute LDL-C reduction..."

always makes me question the fundamental scientific validity of the reported association. "Achieved" LDL levels likely reflect much more the underlying patient physiology, which could be linked to cancer propensity independently of statin use, compared to LDL "reduction," which presumably is more closely related to pharmacodynamics.

Nonetheless, the language used in the JACC is compelling for primary providers, who may need to rethink the low threshold some of them have for pulling the trigger on the use of statins in low-risk patients.

Posted: Aug 16, 2007