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 .
Effect of intensive lipid-lowering therapy with rosuvastatin on progression of carotid intima-media thickness in Japanese patients: Justification for Atherosclerosis Regression Treatment (JART) study.
BACKGROUND A recent trial in Western countries has shown that rosuvastatin slows progression of carotid intima-media thickness ( IMT ) in patients with modest carotid IMT thickening and elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL-C ) . We conducted a prospect i ve , r and omized , open-label , blinded-endpoint trial to determine whether rosuvastatin is more effective than pravastatin in slowing progression of carotid  IMT in Japanese patients . METHODS AND RESULTS Adult patients with hypercholesterolemia who had a maximum IMT ≥1.1 mm were r and omly assigned to receive rosuvastatin or pravastatin . The primary endpoint was the percent change in the mean-IMT , which was measured by a single observer who was blinded to the treatment assignments . The trial was stopped on April 2011 according to the recommendation by the data and safety monitoring committee . A total of 348 patients ( 173 rosuvastatin ; 175 pravastatin ) were enrolled and 314 ( 159 rosuvastatin ; 155 pravastatin ) were included in the primary analysis . Mean ( SD ) percentage changes in the mean-IMT at 12 months were 1.91 % ( 10.9 ) in the rosuvastatin group and 5.8 % ( 12.0 ) in the pravastatin group , with a difference of 3.89 % ( 11.5 ) between the groups ( P=0.004 ) . At 12 months , 85 patients ( 59.4 % ) in the rosuvastatin group achieved a LDL-C/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio ≤1.5 compared with 24 patients ( 16.4 % ) in the pravastatin group ( P<0.0001 ) . CONCLUSIONS Rosuvastatin significantly slowed progression of carotid IMT at 12 months compared with pravastatin
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 .