ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2017
Statins and mortality: the untold story.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alzheimer's disease and its treatment-yesterday, today, and tomorrow.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- The effects of purslane consumption on lipid profile and C-reactive protein: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.Food science & nutrition · 2023Review
- There is urgent need to treat atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk earlier, more intensively, and with greater precision: A review of current practice and recommendations for improved effectiveness.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2022Review
- Statins and mortality: the untold story.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statins are first-line evidence-based drugs for the management of dyslipidaemias and to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. However, statin clinical trials have shown marginally significant benefits on mortality, especially in the primary prevention setting. A major limitation of those trials is their relatively short follow-up. A reduced number of fatal events within a 5-year follow-up make mortality benefits unlikely to arise. This is particularly relevant for the primary prevention trials, where the risk of cardiovascular death is low. The short follow-up is a limitation for safety assessments too. However, extended major statin trials failed to detect any major safety concerns. Safety and efficacy assessments are even more complicated considering the differences of cardiovascular risk status in primary prevention individuals, and also given some potential ethnic and inter-individual genetic variations in response to statin treatment. Considerable evidence suggests a favourable risk-benefit balance for statin treatment. It can be assumed that statins reduce mortality in the long term by preventing cardiovascular events with complications that reduce lifespan. Unfortunately, this hypothesis cannot be proven as there is no current ethical basis on designing long-term placebo-controlled statin trials. Nevertheless, by effectively reducing disabilities related to cardiovascular events, statins have major benefits for public health. Therefore, clinicians should not withhold statin treatment awaiting proof of mortality benefits, as this may remain an 'untold story'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.