GPs pressured to prescribe cheaper cholesterol-lowering medicines

Statins are not the same. Many talk about the class effect of statins.

We know atorva has a long half life so can be given mane as opposed to nocte like other statins. If you look at atorva more carefully you will find that it has other benefits apart from reducing reducing TC and increasing HDL it also has adhesion properties that stabilise plaques and prevent atheroma 's from coming away from vessel walls and occluding.

The benefits of atorva gave been seen by interventionist cardiologists that can see the plaque stabilisation with atorva during angiography compared to patients on other statins.

If I needed a statin I would fight tooth and nail for atorva other any other statin. It's other properties really do make it the statin of choice - the government needs to wake up and listen and take note of the evidence. Maybe then healthcare professionals across the board can put their patients first and help deliver a first class world service.

Atorvastatin and simvastatin both have patient orientated outcome data from high quality randomised controlled trials, there is very little to choose between them on evidence; if anything simvastatin has more evidence than atorvastatin. Simvastatin remains the least expensive and is therefore the first line statin allowing best use of finite NHS resources. As the price of atorvastatin falls an increase will reasonably be seen.

Rosuvastatin has no good PATIENT orientated outcome data and would thus not be first choice for most people.

It really is that simple, if safety, equivalent dosing ie simvastatin 40mg/atorvastatin 10mg and efficacy are equal as they are for simvastatin and atorvastatin then in a finite funded health economy it is perfectly reasonable to choose the least expensive as the first line option.

A decision to use the most expensive drug will simply mean other patients are possibly denied other treatments due to the lost opportunity cost, there is not a bottomless pit

Besides the survey was commissioned by MSD there may be bias! Has Dr Neely got concrete evidence of patient harm, I note he is quoted as 'could'

Any evidence of what you claiming ?