Thousands at risk of illness after ‘misleading’ statin articles

OVER 2,000 more people could suffer heart attacks and strokes after soaring numbers came off statins in the wake of controversial research published in the BMJ, a study suggests.

Researchers said “misleading” claims about levels of side-effects linked to the cholesterol-busting drugs had been followed by a sharp increase in the number of patients coming off statins.

In October 2013, the BMJ published two articles questioning the value of extending the use of statins to large sections of the public.

They came as health watchdogs drew up plans to halve the risk thresholds for the drugs, making 40 per cent of adults eligible for them.

Amid a public debate about “mass medicalisation” of the public, the BMJ retracted a claim made in one of the pieces – that one in five people on statins would suffer side-effects.

Now research by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine suggests that in the six months following the 2013 study, the number of patients coming off statins dropped by around 12 per cent. The findings – also published in the BMJ – said the trend amounted to around 200,000 patients stopping treatment over the period.

Researchers behind the new study said this could mean 2,000 more heart attacks, strokes and cardiovascular events occurring over the next decade, one third of which could prove lethal.

The research examined UK patients over 40 who stopped or started taking statins between January 2011 and March 2015. It found in the six months from October 2013, the number stopping statins, after being prescribed them for being at high risk of developing heart disease within 10 years, fell 12 per cent.

Study author Prof Liam Smeeth said the 2013 articles by Dr John Abramson, from Harvard Medical School, and UK cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, had included “misleading” claims that influenced the public debate on statins.

Prof Peter Weissberg, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, which funded the new research, suggested the BMJ had published controversial views in order to “sell copy”.

He said: “Twenty to 25 years ago all of the main medical journals were wholly objective – they would publish data, they would publish objective editorials that looked at the balance. We now know several of the leading medical journals have axes to grind.

“The BMJ, for example, has made it no secret it does not like the medicalisation of the normal population.”

Dr Fiona Godlee, BMJ editor in chief, said: “It seems absolutely right there is public debate about the benefits and harms of treatments.” She said patients may be aware information on side-effects is worse than that on the benefits.