Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol were reduced in all trials but there was evidence of heterogeneity of effects .
There was no evidence of any serious harm caused by statin prescription .
Evidence available to date showed that primary prevention with statins is likely to be cost-effective and may improve patient quality of life .
Recent findings from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists study using individual patient data meta- analysis indicate that these benefits are similar in people at lower ( < 1 % per year ) risk of a major cardiovascular event .
AUTHORS ' CONCLUSIONS Reductions in all-cause mortality , major vascular events and revascularisations were found with no excess of adverse events among people without evidence of CVD treated with statins
BACKGROUND Reducing high blood cholesterol , a risk factor for cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) events in people with and without a past history of CVD is an important goal of pharmacotherapy .
Statins are the first-choice agents .
Previous review s of the effects of statins have highlighted their benefits in people with CVD .
The case for primary prevention was uncertain when the last version of this review was published ( 2011 ) and in light of new data an up date of this review is required .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects , both harms and benefits , of statins in people with no history of CVD .
A randomized trial of rosuvastatin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism.
BACKGROUND Controversy persists regarding the extent of shared pathways between arterial and venous thrombosis and whether treatments of known efficacy for one disease process have consistent benefits for the other . Observational studies have yielded variable estimates of the effect of statin therapy on the risk of venous thromboembolism , and evidence from r and omized trials is lacking . METHODS We r and omly assigned 17,802 apparently healthy men and women with both low-density lipoprotein ( LDL ) cholesterol levels of less than 130 mg per deciliter ( 3.4 mmol per liter ) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels of 2.0 mg per liter or higher to receive  rosuvastatin , 20 mg per day , or placebo . We followed participants for the first occurrence of pulmonary embolism or deep-vein thrombosis and performed analyses of the data on an intention-to-treat basis . RESULTS During a median follow-up period of 1.9 years ( maximum , 5.0 ) , symptomatic venous thromboembolism occurred in 94 participants : 34 in the rosuvastatin group and 60 in the  placebo group . The rates of venous thromboembolism were 0.18 and 0.32 event per 100 person-years of follow-up in the rosuvastatin and placebo groups , respectively ( hazard ratio with rosuvastatin , 0.57 ; 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 0.37 to 0.86 ; P=0.007 ) ; the corresponding rates for unprovoked venous thromboembolism ( i.e. , occurring in the absence of a known malignant condition , trauma , hospitalization , or surgery ) were 0.10 and 0.17 ( hazard ratio , 0.61 ; 95 % CI , 0.35 to 1.09 ; P=0.09 ) and for provoked venous thromboembolism ( i.e. , occurring in patients with cancer or during or shortly after trauma , hospitalization , or surgery ) , 0.08 and 0.16 ( hazard ratio , 0.52 ; 95 % CI , 0.28 to 0.96 ; P=0.03 ) . The rates of pulmonary embolism were 0.09 in the rosuvastatin group and 0.12 in the placebo group ( hazard ratio , 0.77 ; 95 % CI , 0.41 to 1.45 ; P=0.42 ) , whereas the rates of deep-vein thrombosis only were 0.09 and 0.20 , respectively ( hazard ratio , 0.45 ; 95 % CI , 0.25 to 0.79 ; P=0.004 ) . Consistent effects were observed in all the subgroups examined . No significant differences were seen between treatment groups in the rates of bleeding episodes . CONCLUSIONS In this trial of apparently healthy persons , rosuvastatin significantly reduced the occurrence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism . ( Clinical Trials.gov number , NCT00239681 .
Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol were reduced in all trials but there was evidence of heterogeneity of effects .
There was no evidence of any serious harm caused by statin prescription .
Evidence available to date showed that primary prevention with statins is likely to be cost-effective and may improve patient quality of life .
Recent findings from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists study using individual patient data meta- analysis indicate that these benefits are similar in people at lower ( < 1 % per year ) risk of a major cardiovascular event .
AUTHORS ' CONCLUSIONS Reductions in all-cause mortality , major vascular events and revascularisations were found with no excess of adverse events among people without evidence of CVD treated with statins
BACKGROUND Reducing high blood cholesterol , a risk factor for cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) events in people with and without a past history of CVD is an important goal of pharmacotherapy .
Statins are the first-choice agents .
Previous review s of the effects of statins have highlighted their benefits in people with CVD .
The case for primary prevention was uncertain when the last version of this review was published ( 2011 ) and in light of new data an up date of this review is required .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects , both harms and benefits , of statins in people with no history of CVD .