|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Statin.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Statin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|Mevalonate inhibition was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 07 June 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Statin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|Text and/or other creative content from this version of Mevalonate inhibition was copied or moved into Statin with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Mevalonate inhibition.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
does Ciclosporin increase exposure to Pravastatin?
Wikipedia says: "studies have not shown that these statins increase exposure to ciclosporin". OK, but does ciclosporin=cyclosporin increase exposure to Pravastatin? If yes, how much the dose of Pravastatin is usually to be safe? 20mg per day?
Statins do not inhibit HmG CoA reductase, instead increase synthesis
See reference: 
Statin drug use, post menopausal women, diabetes increase
Unsure why this edit was removed the adverse reactions to statin drug use. This was a large scale study including over a hundred thousand post-menopausal womenTaps2386 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Culver, Annie L., et al. "Statin use and risk of diabetes mellitus in postmenopausal women in the Women's Health Initiative." Archives of internal medicine 172.2 (2012): 144-152.
- @Taps2386: Because it's still a primary study and the conclusions are of little value compared to the results from these: pmid:20167359 and pmid:21693744 meta-analyses. I suppose a case can be made that it is relevant to a particular population and it doesn't contradict the secondary sources, so I haven't reverted it again. If you're not sure about how evidence quality is judged on Wikipedia, please read WP:MEDRS. --RexxS (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. The study is newer than the previous meta-analyses and higher population base. I will look into the judgement on evidence quality and thank you for the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taps2386 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed the study is newer; but that is marginal in this case (2012 vs 2011 and 2010), and the secondary sources used are not out-dated. We would only use a newer secondary source to amend the conclusions of a currently used secondary source, per WP:MEDPRI. If there is little time difference between secondaries that disagreed, we would normally attribute and report both conclusions per WP:YESPOV.
- See: Husten, Larry (24 July 2017). "Nissen Calls Statin Denialism A Deadly Internet-Driven Cult". CardioBrief. -- Jytdog (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: What about this article in Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology? The title is "How statistical deception created the appearance that statins are safe and effective in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease" and the abstract says:
We have provided a critical assessment of research on the reduction of cholesterol levels by statin treatment to reduce cardiovascular disease. Our opinion is that although statins are effective at reducing cholesterol levels, they have failed to substantially improve cardiovascular outcomes. We have described the deceptive approach statin advocates have deployed to create the appearance that cholesterol reduction results in an impressive reduction in cardiovascular disease outcomes through their use of a statistical tool called relative risk reduction (RRR), a method which amplifies the trivial beneficial effects of statins. We have also described how the directors of the clinical trials have succeeded in minimizing the significance of the numerous adverse effects of statin treatment.
- Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ravnskov cannot be considered unbiased in this debate. JFW | T@lk 17:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)