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 .
Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?
CONTEXT Previous studies indicate that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw proindustry conclusions . OBJECTIVE To explore whether the association between funding and conclusions in r and omized drug trials reflects treatment effects or adverse events . DESIGN Observational study of 370 r and omized drug trials included in meta-analyses from Cochrane review s selected from the Cochrane Library , May 2001 . From a r and om sample of 167 Cochrane review s , 25 contained eligible meta-analyses ( assessed a binary outcome ; pooled at least 5 full-paper trials of which at least 1 reported adequate and 1 reported inadequate allocation concealment ) . The primary binary outcome from each meta- analysis was considered the primary outcome for all trials included in each meta- analysis . The association between funding and conclusions was analyzed by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment effect , adverse events , and additional confounding factors ( method ological quality , control intervention , sample size , publication year , and place of publication ) . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Conclusions in trials , classified into whether the experimental drug was recommended as the treatment of choice or not . RESULTS The experimental drug was recommended as treatment of choice in 16 % of trials funded by nonprofit organizations , 30 % of trials not reporting funding , 35 % of trials funded by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations , and 51 % of trials funded by for-profit organizations ( P<.001 ; chi2 test ) . Logistic regression analyses indicated that funding , treatment effect , and double blinding were the only significant predictors of conclusions . Adjusted analyses showed that trials funded by for-profit organizations were significantly more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of choice ( odds ratio , 5.3 ; 95 % confidence interval , 2.0 - 14.4 ) compared with trials funded by nonprofit organizations . This association did not appear to reflect treatment effect or adverse events . CONCLUSIONS Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of trial results . Readers should carefully evaluate whether conclusions in r and omized trials are supported by data
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 .