ReviewGeroScience2026
Brain, benefit, or burden? Revisiting statins and cognitive function in older adults.
Review in GeroScience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sterol biosynthesis, brain development, and disease.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statins are among the most widely prescribed medications for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease, particularly in older adults. However, concerns regarding their potential adverse cognitive effects, including memory loss and dementia, have generated substantial debate and regulatory attention. This narrative review critically appraises current evidence on the relationship between statin use and cognitive outcomes in older adults, exploring both potential risks and benefits. We synthesized findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational cohort studies, meta-analyses, and Mendelian randomization studies. We also examined biological mechanisms, subgroup differences by statin type, and clinical considerations specific to older populations. Most RCTs have not demonstrated a harmful effect of statins on cognition, while observational studies have shown mixed results, including possible protective associations. Mechanistically, statins may exert both neuroprotective and neurotoxic effects, depending on their type, dose, and ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Mendelian randomization analyses, including those involving over 100,000 individuals from the Danish general population, have largely found no causal effect of genetically proxied statin targets on dementia or neurodegenerative diseases. Importantly, older adults remain underrepresented in trials with cognitive outcomes, and real-world evidence is limited by confounding. Two large-scale randomized trials, PREVENTABLE and STAREE, are currently underway and poised to provide definitive evidence regarding the cognitive effects of statins in older populations. Current evidence does not support discontinuing statin therapy in older adults based solely on concerns about cognitive decline. Instead, decisions should be individualized, weighing cardiovascular benefit against cognitive risk, particularly in those with pre-existing cognitive impairment, polypharmacy, or frailty. Future research should prioritize cognition as a primary outcome in studies involving older populations.
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.