On average, they work well for the elderly. Because older people have more ready-made diseases of the heart and blood vessels. They show the effect faster.
Well, that is, a younger person will wait for his heart attack for 10 years, and when he waits, then no one can remember the causes and prevention.
It's easier for older people. If they have already had a heart attack or stroke, and the atherosclerotic plaque somewhere in the artery has lost stability, then the matter very quickly ends with a second heart attack or stroke. It is immediately clear that without statins it is worse.
And on the other hand, if a person has lived to 75 years without heart and vascular disease, then the benefits of statins for him will not be very clear. Simply because there are few such happy old people, and serious scientific research has not yet been carried out on them.
There are other diseases involved as well. If an older person is already growing cancer, then sometimes it makes no sense to poison him with statins. Because he won't live to see his heart attack.
Some cholesterol experts use the same comb to cut hair for people over 85 years old. Type they, too, most likely will not wait for the effect of statins. So why load them with any chemistry?
There is an opinion that older people are better off not abusing the heaviest statins, because they have more side effects. We touched on this story a little in the topic of the aging kidney. True, cardiologists are more likely to worry not about the age-related kidney, but about the age-related liver. She has to digest a lot of medicines that an elderly person takes for another reason.
Briefly speaking
If a person is already old, he does not have heart disease and blood vessels, he does not have extra money, and the liver is already loaded with some kind of chemistry, or he has cancer, then he may not get statins. But that's what I wanted! Truth?
