Statins in Primary Prevention: As Questioned as Aspirin?

This new review, recently published in BMJ, questions the benefit of statins in low-risk primary prevention patients. Authors argue that statins should be more cautiously indicated in primary prevention, considering that their absolute benefit is almost marginal in low-risk patients.

indicación de tratamiento con estatinas

Changes in the European guidelines have translated into a wide expansion of patients eligible for this therapy. In 1987, about 8% of patients older than 50 years had an indication for statins, while now, based on the new guidelines, such indication reaches 60% of the same population. As a result of this wide expansion, the number needed to treat (NNT) has also increased. The reduction of one major cardiovascular event in the low-risk population required treating 40 patients in 1987, while (based on the new guidelines) the same outcome required treating 400 patients in 2016. This has a huge cost for healthcare systems, even though the cost of statins has dropped drastically in recent years.

This debate has been present in both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. In 2018, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines emphasized the need to “discuss” with the patient the pros and cons of statins for primary prevention, particularly in the low-risk population. This decision, made jointly with the patient, should include a review of major risk factors, the benefits of lifestyle modifications, the potential for drug-drug interactions, and, of course, financial costs. Patient preferences have been permanently included in the decision algorithm.


Read also: AHA 2018 | New Dyslipidemia Guidelines Support Non-Statin Therapy and Coronary Artery Calcium Screening.


For this review published in BMJ, researchers included all randomized studies published since 1995. Overall, statins reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-0.97), cardiovascular death (odds ratio [OR]: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.77-0.95), and major cardiovascular events (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.70-0.80). Such benefit for the general population varies depending on the baseline risk of patients.

In low-risk patients, statins have no impact on mortality; however, they are still able to reduce coronary events by about 40%.

When the analysis includes only women, statins do not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality.

Such spectacular relative reduction in events may hide a very small absolute reduction among low-risk patients, particularly young women.



Read also: ACC 2018 | SECURE-PCI: High Dose of Statins pior PCI Could Help.


In a practical example, for a patient with a 10-year cardiovascular risk lower than 5% (very low), statins may reduce the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease by 20%, but the confidence interval is very wide, suggesting that the risk could be reduced by up to 57% or increased by 47%.

Original title: Statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Reference: Byrne P et al. BMJ. 2019;367:l5674.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

More articles by this author

Is it safe to use negative chronotropic drugs early after TAVI?

TAVI is associated with a relevant incidence of conduction system disturbances and the development of atrioventricular block that may require permanent pacemaker implantation. Many...

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Diabetic Patients with AMI: De-Escalation Strategy

Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a common comorbidity in patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) of increasing prevalence over the last decade, associated with...

AHA 2025 | OPTIMA-AF: 1 Month vs. 12 Months of Dual Therapy (DOAC + P2Y12) After PCI in Atrial Fibrillation

Concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary artery disease is a common occurrence in clinical practice. In these patients, current guidelines recommend 1 month of...

AHA 2025 | OCEAN Study: Anticoagulation vs. Antiplatelet Therapy After Successful Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

After a successful atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, the need to maintain long-term anticoagulation (AC) remains uncertain, especially considering the very low residual embolic risk...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

VECTOR: First Percutaneous Aorto-Coronary Bypass Case, a New Conceptual Approach

Coronary obstruction represents one of the most severe complications associated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation, particularly in valve-in-valve scenarios involving surgical bioprostheses, narrow aortic...

Comparison of strategies: NMA of IVUS, OCT, or angiography in complex lesions

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in complex lesions continues to represent a technical challenge in contemporary interventional cardiology. Angiography, although it remains the most widely...

Is upper-limb aerobic training an effective alternative to lower-limb exercise in peripheral artery disease?

Peripheral artery disease is associated with impaired functional capacity, reduced walking distance, and poorer quality of life, and structured exercise is a class I...