Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Clinical Intelligence

Statins for primary prevention in people with a 10% 10-year cardiovascular risk: too much medicine too soon?

Dharani Yerrakalva and Simon J Griffin
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (654): 40-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X688789
Dharani Yerrakalva
Department of Primary Care and Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
Roles: Academic GP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Simon J Griffin
Department of Primary Care and Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
Roles: Professor of general practice
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

INTRODUCTION

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on lipid modification advise offering statins for primary prevention to patients with over 10% 10-year modelled risk of a cardiovascular event, a change from 20%. This has generated controversy among clinicians, researchers, and journal editors. Patients already taking statins were more likely to stop taking them after the intense media coverage between March and October 2014, though there was no associated change in initiation.1

Clinicians’ worries were crystallised in a letter of concern from leading UK medical figures to NICE concerning the frequency of adverse events and the magnitude of the effectiveness of statins.2 Two sources of evidence were cited regarding risk levels, the meta-analyses by the Cholesterol Collaboration Trialists (CTT) Collaboration and Cochrane.3,4

EVIDENCE OF BENEFIT

The CTT Collaboration meta-analysis used individual patient data from 22 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of statin versus control (n = 134 537);3 authors were able to stratify individuals into risk categories. The CTT Collaboration is the only group to have been granted access to individual patient data by pharmaceutical companies funding RCTs, but they were not allowed to share data with third parties and were not granted access to individual patient adverse event data.5 For primary prevention, among those at high risk (10–20% risk over 5 years), statins led to a significant relative risk reduction in major vascular events and a non-significant relative risk reduction in vascular mortality.

Among intermediate-risk patients (5–10% risk over 5 years), statins were associated with a significant relative risk reduction in major vascular events and major coronary events, but to non-significant reductions in coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality and all-cause mortality. Among those receiving statins for 5 years and attaining a 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, this equates to absolute risk reductions in those with intermediate risk of 4 vascular deaths saved per 1000 and 15 vascular events per 1000.

It may be difficult for a GP to interpret these data in the UK clinical context. The UK risk scores used a 10-year risk of having an event, whereas the CTT meta-analysis describes risk groups in terms of 5-year risk. Is 5–10% risk over 5 years equivalent to the NICE 10–20% 10-year risk? Kaplan– Meier estimates of the 10-year cumulative total cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a large UK population-based cohort suggest they may not be equivalent.6 Some have questioned why this meta-analysis reported outcomes per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. It is not the standard way of displaying benefit from statins and can be confusing. Do all patients who take statins experience a 1 mmol/L drop in LDL cholesterol? A meta-analysis by Law et al 7 of 164 trials examining the effects of statins on LDL reduction found that statins lower LDL cholesterol concentration by an average of 1.8 mmol/L. Overall this analysis demonstrates a statistically non-significant mortality benefit, a significant relative risk morbidity benefit, and a modest absolute risk morbidity benefit.

The Cochrane meta-analysis in 2013 examined 18 RCTs (19 trial arms; n = 56 934) comparing treatment with statins for at least 12 months with placebo.4 It described the benefit of statins for primary prevention across all risk levels, but not stratified by baseline risk. Thus, it does not provide evidence for a change in risk level to 10%, but supports use of statins in primary prevention generally. The authors reported that all-cause mortality was reduced by statins versus placebo, as were combined fatal and non-fatal CHD events. This equates to a number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 138 people treated with statins for 5 years to prevent one death, 49 people to prevent one cardiovascular disease (CVD) event, and 155 people to prevent one stroke.

EVIDENCE OF HARM

Millions of patients are currently taking statins without problems, but clinical experience suggests that statins cause more problems than reported in trials, and the incidence of side effects in electronic medical records is higher than those reported in clinical trials. RCTs might report lower relative frequencies of side effects by excluding patients with comorbidities, pre-randomisation run-in periods with exclusion of those not tolerating statins, moderate dropout rates, not assessing certain adverse events, and under-ascertainment of others.

Strong defences against these assertions have been made and it remains unclear how much they influence interpretation of the available RCT evidence. Tobert et al argue that despite exclusions these trials include significant numbers of women, older patients, and patients with comorbid disease.8 In patients with comorbid disease, rates of withdrawal due to adverse events are consistently similar in the statin and placebo arms. The HPS trial had a pre-randomisation phase, with similar rates of adverse events causing withdrawal in both statin and placebo run-ins.9

Proponents of wider use of statins suggest that potential adverse events were well assessed in trials, and in national health registry data, but potential adverse events not routinely assessed in RCTs have come to light in clinical practice. For example, it has been suggested that fatigue and myalgia may adversely affect tertiary outcomes such as physical activity, and that exercise-induced myalgia may limit adherence to and cardiovascular benefits of statins.10

Meta-analyses contribute evidence on adverse events.4,11,12 The Cochrane review relied on two earlier reviews that included published-only data to examine rates of adverse events.4 They found no excess adverse events (cancer, myopathy, rhabdomyolysis, haemorrhagic stroke, or liver enzyme elevation) in participants who took statins versus placebo, although not all trials reported these data. This echoes Finegold’s meta-analysis of 14 primary prevention RCTs (n = 46 262) of statin versus placebo, which found no increased statin-attributable adverse outcomes,11 but did find that statins increased the absolute risk of diabetes by 0.5%.11 Sattar et al, in a meta-analysis of 13 RCTs examining incident diabetes risk in statin versus control groups (n = 91 140), found statins were associated with a 9% increased risk of incident diabetes.12 In the Cochrane review, an increased risk of incident diabetes was found in the two trials reporting this outcome. It reported that 99 people need to be treated with statins for 5 years to cause one case of diabetes (number-needed-to-harm [NNH]),4 although it is important to bear in mind that the reduction in overall cardiovascular risk associated with statins is likely to outweigh the additional cardiovascular risk associated with small increases in blood glucose levels. These outstanding uncertainties have led to calls for greater transparency of reporting of adverse event data from existing trials.

CONCLUSION

Whatever the risk level clinicians set, the decision about taking a statin is up to the individual. When communicating risk, patients and clinicians understand absolute risks better than relative risks,13 and the most striking omission from the NICE guidelines was clear evidence regarding absolute risks at the different risk levels. If a clinician is ill-prepared to communicate the benefits of a preventive intervention such as statins, negotiations with patients are likely to be suboptimal.

Perhaps we should worry less about side effects if statins allow us to live longer, as side effects are rarely fatal. However, if statins do not extend life in those at lower CVD risk then the balance of risks and benefits becomes more important. There is clear evidence of benefit of statins for primary prevention, even in those at lower risk of CVD and this is likely to translate to avoidance of reductions in quality of life associated with some cardiovascular events. Tough decisions have to be made by policymakers on the balance of evidence, but without the full backing of the medical community the NICE recommendation may have lost some of its potency. Coverage is important for a population-wide approach to have an impact. Guidelines are of course only a guide, although the integration of this recommendation into NHS Health Checks and potentially the Quality and Outcomes Framework goes some way to compelling its implementation.

Some time has passed since the release of the guidelines and little progress appears to have been made in allaying some of the worries that have been voiced. There is still a need to clarify the risk and benefits of statins for the ultimate success of this policy. This guideline highlights the difficult role evidence sometimes has to play in modern medicine and suggests that clinicians themselves might consider reflecting on the research underpinning everyday practice.

Notes

Funding

Dharani Yerrakalva was funded by an NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowship.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org/letters

  • Received April 27, 2016.
  • Revision requested June 7, 2016.
  • Accepted July 19, 2016.
  • © British Journal of General Practice 2017

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Matthews A,
    2. Herrett E,
    3. Gasparrini A,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Impact of statin related media coverage on use of statins: interrupted time series analysis with UK primary care data. BMJ 353:i3283.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Thompson R,
    2. Gerada C,
    3. Haslam D,
    4. et al.
    (2014) Letter of concerns about the latest NICE draft guidance on statins. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, https://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/News/NICE-statin-letter.pdf (accessed 23 Nov 2016).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Mihaylova B,
    2. Emberson J,
    3. Blackwell L,
    4. et al.
    (2012) The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials. Lancet 380(9841):581–590.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Taylor F,
    2. Huffman MD,
    3. Macedo AF,
    4. et al.
    (2013) Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD004816.
  5. 5.↵
    (2014) BMJ Independent Statins Review Panel: Supporting Documentation, Letter to British Medical Journal from CTSU. http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1341683-rorycollinsreply.html (accessed 23 Nov 2016).
  6. 6.↵
    1. Jørstad HT,
    2. Colkesen EB,
    3. Boekholdt SM,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Estimated 10-year cardiovascular mortality seriously underestimates overall cardiovascular risk. Heart 102(1):63–68.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Law MR,
    2. Wald NJ,
    3. Rudnicka AR
    (2003) Quantifying effect of statins on low density lipoprotein cholesterol, ischaemic heart disease, and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 326(7404):1423.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Tobert JA,
    2. Newman CB
    (2016) Statin tolerability: in defence of placebo-controlled trials. Eur J Prev Cardiol 23(8):891–896.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Armitage J,
    2. Bowman L,
    3. Collins R,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Effects of simvastatin 40 mg daily on muscle and liver adverse effects in a 5-year randomized placebo-controlled trial in 20,536 high-risk people. BMC Clin Pharmacol 9:6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Opie LH
    (2013) Exercise-induced myalgia may limit the cardiovascular benefits of statins. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 27(6):569–572.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Finegold JA,
    2. Manisty CH,
    3. Goldacre B,
    4. et al.
    (2014) What proportion of symptomatic side effects in patients taking statins are genuinely caused by the drug? Systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials to aid individual patient choice. Eur J Prev Cardiol 21(4):464–474.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Sattar N,
    2. Preiss D,
    3. Murray HM,
    4. et al.
    (2010) Statins and risk of incident diabetes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomised statin trials. Lancet 375(9716):735–742.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Fagerlin A,
    2. Zikmund-Fisher BJ,
    3. Ubel PA
    (2011) Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(19):1436–1443.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 67 (654)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 67, Issue 654
January 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Statins for primary prevention in people with a 10% 10-year cardiovascular risk: too much medicine too soon?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Statins for primary prevention in people with a 10% 10-year cardiovascular risk: too much medicine too soon?
Dharani Yerrakalva, Simon J Griffin
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (654): 40-41. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp17X688789

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Statins for primary prevention in people with a 10% 10-year cardiovascular risk: too much medicine too soon?
Dharani Yerrakalva, Simon J Griffin
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (654): 40-41. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp17X688789
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • INTRODUCTION
    • EVIDENCE OF BENEFIT
    • EVIDENCE OF HARM
    • CONCLUSION
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • How to manage low testosterone level in men: a guide for primary care
  • Hyperparathyroidism (primary) NICE guideline: diagnosis, assessment, and initial management
  • The atypical presentation of COVID-19 as gastrointestinal disease: key points for primary care
Show more Clinical Intelligence

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242