Trusted Voices: Statins - new safety data challenges misinformation
Statins are among the most prescribed medicines in the UK. They lower cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart attack, stroke and heart disease.
Debate about side effects has shaped how some people view these medicines. That debate now sits within a wider challenge. Medicines misinformation can spread faster than the evidence behind it.
A major new study, part funded by the British Heart Foundation and published in The Lancet, found that statins do not cause most of the side effects listed in their patient information leaflets. The British Heart Foundation describes it as the most comprehensive review of statin side effects to date.
Read the British Heart Foundation summary of the Lancet study on statin side effects.
The findings provide reassurance. They also expose a gap between evidence and perception. That gap affects real decisions.
What the evidence shows
The review found that most symptoms attributed to statins occur just as often in people taking a placebo.
In most cases, the medicine is not responsible.
Professor Bryan Williams, Chief Scientific and Medical Officer at the British Heart Foundation, said misinformation has shaped public perceptions of statins and stressed the importance of engaging with patient concerns.
“We now have irrefutable evidence that nearly all problems listed as statins side effects are not linked to the medications at all. It’s clear that the benefits of these lifesaving medicines far outweigh the risks, and this should always be communicated to patients when they are making decisions about their treatment.”
'Clear example of misinformation affecting care'
Years of misinformation on the side effects of statins have made people fearful. The misconception these medications can cause a variety of debilitating problems is often repeated.
For people at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, statins significantly reduce the likelihood of heart attack and stroke.
Dr Sophie Newton, GP who creates videos as Dr Sophie GP, said statins are one of the clearest examples of medicines misinformation affecting patient care. She highlighted the growing scale of online health content and the challenges this creates in routine practice.
“In clinic, statins are one of the clearest examples of medicines misinformation affecting care. I see patients who are worried about taking them, or who have stopped them, after watching persuasive videos or reading confident social media posts claiming harm,” she says.
“What has changed is the scale. It used to be the occasional newspaper clipping. Now people are exposed to health content on their phones every day. Balanced discussions about absolute risk reduction and long-term benefit are less emotive, so they travel less far.
“As a GP, it can be challenging to counter layers of online misinformation within routine practice. That is one of the reasons I create clear, evidence-based patient information videos on Dr Sophie GP. They give patients access to trusted, plain-language explanations they can watch in their own time, helping to rebuild confidence in medicines and in the decisions they make about their health.”
She adds: " Patients often tell me they feel calmer and more confident after watching them, and some have chosen to restart or continue treatment because they better understand the evidence. For me, that shift from fear to informed choice is the real impact.”
When misinformation reaches the consulting room
The impact of medicines misinformation is visible in clinical practice.
Dr Knut Schroeder, GP, said he is seeing increasing concern among patients who have read about medicines online. He emphasised the importance of exploring those concerns carefully and reviewing the evidence together.
“As a GP, I’m increasingly seeing the impact of medicine misinformation in my consultations. Patients often arrive worried about treatments they’ve read about online - sometimes convinced a medicine is unsafe, addictive, or not needed.
I usually start with curiosity rather than correction. I ask what patients have seen or read and what worries them most. We then explore the evidence together - referring to trusted sources, including those that carry the PIF TICK.
When people have access to clear, credible information in language they understand, conversations become calmer - and decisions about medicines become genuinely shared.”
When misleading claims circulate without context, trust can weaken. Some people delay or stop medicines that reduce their risk of serious illness.
A shared responsibility
Andy Collier, Senior Policy Manager at the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), said health mis- and disinformation present risks to public trust and place additional pressure on healthcare services. He emphasised the need for coordinated action across sectors.
Perhaps the most concerning trend is the recent surge in popularity of video-based social media, which has widely facilitated the spread of misinformation through algorithms and passive consumption by users. We now also better understand the true burden that misinformation places on the healthcare system, particularly in primary care, where it can lead to multiple, extended appointments to address misunderstandings about medicines and vaccines.
The pharmaceutical industry is keen to support its partners in addressing health mis- and disinformation. While current regulations place limitations on pharmaceutical company communications with the public, it is vital that our industry is able to amplify the messages of trusted communicators while working in partnership to improve access to factual health information.”
Clear, balanced and evidence based communication is essential in this environment. Quality assurance processes, including PIF TICK, support organisations to demonstrate that their information is trustworthy, up to date and grounded in reliable evidence.
Robust research matters. Clear communication matters just as much.
Together, they protect informed choice and strengthen public trust in healthcare.