Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Research

Efficacy of statins for primary prevention in people at low cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysis

Marcello Tonelli, Anita Lloyd, Fiona Clement, Jon Conly, Don Husereau, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Scott Klarenbach, Finlay A. McAlister, Natasha Wiebe and Braden Manns
CMAJ November 08, 2011 183 (16) E1189-E1202; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.101280
Marcello Tonelli
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: mtonelli-admin@med.ualberta.ca
Anita Lloyd
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fiona Clement
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jon Conly
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Don Husereau
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Brenda Hemmelgarn
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Scott Klarenbach
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Finlay A. McAlister
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Natasha Wiebe
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Braden Manns
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Submit a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
References
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Minimum 7 characters.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'. Minimum 12 characters.
Your organization, institution's or residential address.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • High vs. Low Potency
    Leah M. Goeres
    Posted on: 14 February 2012
  • Re: The importance of total serious adverse events as an outcome in randomized controlled trials
    Donald Husereau
    Posted on: 01 February 2012
  • The importance of total serious adverse events as an outcome in randomized controlled trials
    Aaron M. Tejani
    Posted on: 16 January 2012
  • Re:Statin spin
    Marcello Tonelli
    Posted on: 25 October 2011
  • Statin spin
    Patrick Quail
    Posted on: 12 October 2011
  • Posted on: (14 February 2012)
    Page navigation anchor for High vs. Low Potency
    High vs. Low Potency
    • Leah M. Goeres, Student

    After reading through this meta-analysis I still can't decided if patients should be put on a high or low potency statin. I understand that there is no significant difference when comparing the two groups, however, I notice a difference. Low potency statins have fewer significant findings vs. high potency statins. There were also double the number of patients using low potency statins in the pool of participants. I wonder...

    Show More

    After reading through this meta-analysis I still can't decided if patients should be put on a high or low potency statin. I understand that there is no significant difference when comparing the two groups, however, I notice a difference. Low potency statins have fewer significant findings vs. high potency statins. There were also double the number of patients using low potency statins in the pool of participants. I wonder what the results would look like if the two groups were of a comparable size. I also wonder what the results would show if the studies were conducted over a greater span of time.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (1 February 2012)
    Page navigation anchor for Re: The importance of total serious adverse events as an outcome in randomized controlled trials
    Re: The importance of total serious adverse events as an outcome in randomized controlled trials
    • Donald Husereau
    • Other Contributors:

    We thank Dr. Tejani and colleagues for their comments, which highlight challenges associated with using data from meta-analysis to make clinical decisions in patients with low risk of future disease. Although some issues are not elaborated upon in the letter, we feel they deserve comment. First, available evidence suggests that individuals at differing levels of risk enjoy similar proportional benefits from the use of st...

    Show More

    We thank Dr. Tejani and colleagues for their comments, which highlight challenges associated with using data from meta-analysis to make clinical decisions in patients with low risk of future disease. Although some issues are not elaborated upon in the letter, we feel they deserve comment. First, available evidence suggests that individuals at differing levels of risk enjoy similar proportional benefits from the use of statins. Specifically, an individual patient data meta-analysis recently demonstrated similar relative risk reductions across a wide range of future cardiovascular risk.(1) We reported relative risks in the abstract because of the potential for absolute risk differences to mislead when event rates in control groups differ.(2) We hope that clinicians would individualize treatment for individual patients using relative risks, according to recommended practice.(3)

    Dr. Tejani's letter includes an alternative interpretation of our estimate of the pooled risk of serious adverse events and withdrawals across treatment groups (RR 1.01 for statin recipients vs placebo, 95% CI 0.96-1.07; I2 = 8%) This interpretation assumes that efficacy endpoints, such as myocardial infarction and mortality, are included in the analysis of total serious adverse events observed. Our interpretation is based on a more conventional assumption - that efficacy endpoints are removed from analyses of serious adverse events. We based our assumption on firsthand experience with previous trials as well as supplementary trial data. For example, the FDA Medical Reviewer's report of JUPITER states "Any adjudicated cardiovascular death was classified as an efficacy endpoint and not an [adverse event]".(4)

    We could not always determine whether efficacy and safety endpoints were analysed separately, based on available trial reports. It is also important to point out that our definition of serious events also included those events that led to withdrawal of assigned treatment, not only those that were life-threatening.However, we acknowledge that properly interpreting how harm was experienced, measured and reported by trialists is of special importance when achievable benefits are low - and that our claim of benefit is very sensitive to this assumption. We would be happy to supply the forest plot to Tejani and others upon request.

    Lastly, we respectfully disagree with certain points in Tejani's letter. The Kyushu Lipid Intervention Study Group (KLIS) trial was in fact a randomized trial - and the trial met inclusion criteria for our systematic review. While we acknowledge there was compelling evidence that allocation to treatment groups was poorly conducted (a phenomenon which has been associated with exaggerated estimates of effectiveness) the analysts used statistical methods in an attempt to reduce systematic bias. We also disagree with Tejani's suggestion that a narrow confidence interval implies robust findings. A narrow confidence interval only implies reduction in random error. As we have already described (and Tejani suggests), a multitude of factors including trial conduct and measurement assumptions could contribute non-random error that potentially influence the conclusions of a study. We did not attempt to formally adjust for systematic or other sources of non-random error but would invite others to do so using existing approaches.(5)

    Sincerely, Donald Husereau, Braden Manns, Anita Lloyd, Marcello Tonelli

    1. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists'. Efficacy of cholesterol- lowering therapy in 18?686 people with diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statins: a meta-analysis. The Lancet. 2008 Jan 18;371(9607):117-25.

    2. Cates CJ. Simpson's paradox and calculation of number needed to treat from meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:1.

    3. Glasziou PP, Irwig LM. An evidence based approach to individualising treatment. BMJ. 1995 Nov 18;311(7016):1356-9.

    4. Roberts MD. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; Application number: 21-366/s-016, Medical Review(s), CRESTOR? (rosuvastatin calcium) [Internet]. 2010 Feb 5;Available from: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2010/021366s016MedR.pdf

    5. Maldonado G. Adjusting a relative-risk estimate for study imperfections. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2008 Jul 1;62(7):655-63.

    Conflict of Interest:

    As cited in article.

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (16 January 2012)
    Page navigation anchor for The importance of total serious adverse events as an outcome in randomized controlled trials
    The importance of total serious adverse events as an outcome in randomized controlled trials
    • Aaron M. Tejani
    • Other Contributors:

    Tonelli et al's recent systematic review of statins for primary prevention [1] may mislead readers in a number of ways: 1) the review implies that the meta-analytic results are relevant to low-risk individuals, 2) the abstract does not present the benefits as absolute risk reductions, 3) the interpretation and conclusions in the abstract do not reflect the authors' assessment of the risk of bias, 4) it includes a non-ra...

    Show More

    Tonelli et al's recent systematic review of statins for primary prevention [1] may mislead readers in a number of ways: 1) the review implies that the meta-analytic results are relevant to low-risk individuals, 2) the abstract does not present the benefits as absolute risk reductions, 3) the interpretation and conclusions in the abstract do not reflect the authors' assessment of the risk of bias, 4) it includes a non-randomized trial [2] in a pre-planned analysis of "only" randomized trials and 5) the abstract and conclusions ignore the total serious adverse event (SAE) outcome data . While each of these represents a serious flaw, we focus only on the SAE data, which we consider is the most important.

    In the results section of the review Tonelli et al. write: "Twenty- one trials (n = 47 589) reported the number of participants who had serious adverse events. The trial-level relative risk could not be estimated for four trials that reported no events in either group. From the remaining 17 trials (n = 47 021), the pooled risk of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between treatment groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96-1.07; I2 = 8%)." While we congratulate the authors for obtaining SAE data from 21 of 29 trials, we urge them to post the Forest plot and raw SAE data from this analysis on CMAJ's website for use by other researchers. The pooled SAE relative risk confirms the finding of the UBC Therapeutics Initiative that total serious adverse events are not reduced by statins in the clinical setting of primary prevention. [3,4] Based on this finding the Therapeutics Letters concluded that statins do not have a proven net health benefit in primary prevention populations. The analysis by Tonelli et al., which furnishes SAE data from more trials, strengthens that conclusion.

    What does the Tonelli et al. estimate of relative risk for SAE RR mean in clinical terms? The RR of 1.01 implies that taking a statin increases the chance of dying, being hospitalized or permanently disabled by a non-significant 1% as compared with placebo. The narrow confidence interval means that the finding is precise and robust (unlikely to be overturned by additional trials). The I2 of 8% means that the effect estimates from the 17 different trials are consistent and homogeneous. There is also a low risk of bias for this outcome as rigorous reporting of SAE is a regulatory requirement for all clinical trials. If anything, this may be an underestimate of the real RR, because the authors of the 8/29 trials that were missing the SAE outcome would not provide the SAE data A conservative assumption is that serious adverse events in those trials were more frequent in the statin group than the placebo group.

    Why do Tonelli et al. ignore the SAE outcome in their conclusions? Perhaps the SAE outcome data create a dilemma for proponents of widespread statin use in primary prevention. How can statins cause a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality, non-fatal MI and non-fatal stroke, all outcomes that represent serious adverse events and are counted as such within the SAE data reported in clinical trials, and yet not reduce total serious adverse events? We can envisage two possible explanations for these findings. First, the observed reduction in mortality, non-fatal MI and non-fatal stroke reflect bias in the conduct of the RCTs and are not a real effect. [4] Tonelli et al recognize a moderate risk of bias in the RCTs making up this review. A second explanation is that statins cause an increase in some other serious adverse events that negate the expected reduction. Since the absolute risk reductions for the 3 SAE outcomes that are reduced are small, 0.3 to 0.7%, the absolute risk increases of other SAEs required to negate them would also be small. For informed patient choice, it is not essential to know the explanation. We consider that the key information primary prevention patients need to know is that taking a statin daily for 5 years does not reduce their chance of having a serious adverse event (dying, being hospitalized, or suffering permanent disability).

    In summary, we consider that the most important finding in Tonelli et al's meta-analysis is that statins do not reduce total serious adverse events and thus do not provide a net health benefit in primary prevention populations. Because the authors failed to appreciate the importance of serious adverse events as an outcome, they draw the opposite conclusion that statins are beneficial and their use should be promoted in this population.

    References

    1. Tonelli M, Lloyd A, Clement F et al. Efficacy of statins for primary prevention in people at low cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysis. CMAJ 2011. DOI:10.1503/cmaj.101280

    2. Pravastatin use and risk of coronary events and cerebral infarction in japanese men with moderate hypercholesterolemia: the Kyushu Lipid Intervention Study [KLIS]. J Atheroscler Thromb 2000; 7:110-21.

    3. Therapeutics Initiative. Do statins have a role in primary prevention? An update. Therapeutics Letter 2010, Mar-Apr; 77:1-2 http://www.ti.ubc.ca/letter77 (accessed Dec 12 2011)

    4. Therapeutics Initiative Do Statins have a Role in Primary Prevention? Therapeutics Letter 2003, Apr-Jun;48:1-2 http://www.ti.ubc.ca/newsletter/do-statins-have-role-primary-prevention (accessed Dec 13 2011).

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (25 October 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Re:Statin spin
    Re:Statin spin
    • Marcello Tonelli, physician

    I thank Dr. Quail for his letter.

    In reply, I will pose an equally rhetorical question: when can authors expect that those writing letters to a journal would actually have read the article to which they refer?

    On the first page of the "Interpretation" section, our article says: "In a meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of statins among patients with coronary artery disease, the number needed to tre...

    Show More

    I thank Dr. Quail for his letter.

    In reply, I will pose an equally rhetorical question: when can authors expect that those writing letters to a journal would actually have read the article to which they refer?

    On the first page of the "Interpretation" section, our article says: "In a meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of statins among patients with coronary artery disease, the number needed to treat was 86 to prevent a single death from any cause and 62 to prevent a single nonfatal myocardial infarction. The corresponding numbers needed to treat among people at low cardiovascular risk by our primary definition were 239 and 153, which reflect the generally low rates of vascular events in this population. "

    The statements in the abstract and the Interpretation section are both correct and I do not agree that either statement is dishonest.

    Conflict of Interest:

    An author of the article

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (12 October 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Statin spin
    Statin spin
    • Patrick Quail, physician

    When can we expect authors and publishers such as the CMAJ to print more realistic and honest interpretations of their work? For example,it is well known that there exists a small but clear benefit to taking statins in low risk patients. Tonelli and his colleagues confirm this in their systematic review. However, the absolute risk reduction and therefore the number needed to treat is of such an order that I would have to...

    Show More

    When can we expect authors and publishers such as the CMAJ to print more realistic and honest interpretations of their work? For example,it is well known that there exists a small but clear benefit to taking statins in low risk patients. Tonelli and his colleagues confirm this in their systematic review. However, the absolute risk reduction and therefore the number needed to treat is of such an order that I would have to treat nearly 250 of my low risk patients for a median of 2 years to prevent one death. Does this really have the same meaning as stated in the abstract "Statins were found to be efficacious in preventing death and cardiovascular morbidity in people at low cardiovascular risk" ?

    Tonelli, "Efficacy of statins for primary prevention in people at low cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysis"".CMAJ 2011. DOI:10.1503/cmaj.101280

    Conflict of Interest:

    none

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 183 (16)
CMAJ
Vol. 183, Issue 16
8 Nov 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Efficacy of statins for primary prevention in people at low cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Efficacy of statins for primary prevention in people at low cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysis
Marcello Tonelli, Anita Lloyd, Fiona Clement, Jon Conly, Don Husereau, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Scott Klarenbach, Finlay A. McAlister, Natasha Wiebe, Braden Manns
CMAJ Nov 2011, 183 (16) E1189-E1202; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.101280

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Efficacy of statins for primary prevention in people at low cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysis
Marcello Tonelli, Anita Lloyd, Fiona Clement, Jon Conly, Don Husereau, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Scott Klarenbach, Finlay A. McAlister, Natasha Wiebe, Braden Manns
CMAJ Nov 2011, 183 (16) E1189-E1202; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.101280
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Implications of Coronary Artery Calcium Testing for Treatment Decisions Among Statin Candidates According to the ACC/AHA Cholesterol Management Guidelines: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
  • Acute myocardial infarction and influenza: a meta-analysis of case-control studies
  • Statins and Cardiovascular Primary Prevention in CKD: A Meta-Analysis
  • Guidelines for the Primary Prevention of Stroke: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association
  • Low-Risk Diet and Lifestyle Habits in the Primary Prevention of Myocardial Infarction in Men: A Population-Based Prospective Cohort Study
  • The Role of Statins in Diabetes Treatment
  • Drug Repurposing Screen Reveals FDA-Approved Inhibitors of Human HMG-CoA Reductase and Isoprenoid Synthesis That Block Cryptosporidium parvum Growth
  • Statins for primary prevention
  • Statins for primary prevention
  • The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of statins in low-risk patients
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Hospital factors associated with maternal and neonatal outcomes of deliveries to patients with a previous cesarean delivery: an ecological study
  • Booster vaccination with inactivated whole-virus or mRNA vaccines and COVID-19–related deaths among people with multimorbidity: a cohort study
  • Association between virtual primary care and emergency department use during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada
Show more Research

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Drugs: cardiovascular system

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire