From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

does Ciclosporin increase exposure to Pravastatin?[edit]

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? (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Statins do not inhibit HmG CoA reductase, instead increase synthesis[edit]

See reference: [1]


  1. ^ Schonewille, M; Freark de Boer, J; Mele, L; Wolters, H; Bloks, VW; Wolters, JC; Kuivenhoven, JA; Tietge, UJ; Brufau, G; Groen, AK (August 2016). "Statins increase hepatic cholesterol synthesis and stimulate fecal cholesterol elimination in mice". Journal of lipid research. 57 (8): 1455–64. PMID 27313057. 

Redtails (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Statin drug use, post menopausal women, diabetes increase[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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.

Statin Damage[edit]

what about Duane Graveline: Statin Damage Crisis (2010)? i guess an addied controversy section would be beneficial to the article. (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC).

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)
I’d say that is compelling, Eric. Jusdafax 04:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Ravnskov cannot be considered unbiased in this debate. JFW | T@lk 17:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Jfdwolff, I'm unfamiliar with the particular author you're referencing (though I see they're involved in the above proposed article). Can you elaborate a bit on why Ravnskov's perspective cannot be viewed as unbiased in this debate? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it depends a lot on how you regard denialists. The benefits of statins on specific endpoints is widely accepted, and I would set very high standards before basing any content based on anything written by this particular author on grounds of WP:WEIGHT. JFW | T@lk 12:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)