Cited by 114Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthCancer, Lipids, and MetabolismAcute Myocardial Infarction Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access

Abstract

Importance: The association between statin-induced reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the absolute risk reduction of individual, rather than composite, outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke, is unclear. Objective: To assess the association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels with treatment with statin therapy and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke to facilitate shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and inform clinical guidelines and policy. Data Sources: PubMed and Embase were searched to identify eligible trials from January 1987 to June 2021. Study Selection: Large randomized clinical trials that examined the effectiveness of statins in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes with a planned duration of 2 or more years and that reported absolute changes in LDL-C levels. Interventions were treatment with statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) vs placebo or usual care. Participants were men and women older than 18 years. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Three independent reviewers extracted data and/or assessed the methodological quality and certainty of the evidence using the risk of bias 2 tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Any differences in opinion were resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses and a meta-regression were undertaken. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome: all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes: myocardial infarction, stroke. Findings: Twenty-one trials were included in the analysis. Meta-analyses showed reductions in the absolute risk of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.2%) for all-cause mortality, 1.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.7%) for myocardial infarction, and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.6%) for stroke in those randomized to treatment with statins, with associated relative risk reductions of 9% (95% CI, 5%-14%), 29% (95% CI, 22%-34%), and 14% (95% CI, 5%-22%) respectively. A meta-regression exploring the potential mediating association of the magnitude of statin-induced LDL-C reduction with outcomes was inconclusive. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the absolute risk reductions of treatment with statins in terms of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke are modest compared with the relative risk reductions, and the presence of significant heterogeneity reduces the certainty of the evidence. A conclusive association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels and individual clinical outcomes was not established, and these findings underscore the importance of discussing absolute risk reductions when making informed clinical decisions with individual patients.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.0134

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 54 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Vine, 1994, Ischaemic heart disease and cholesterol: absolute risk more informative than relative risk., BMJ, 308, 1040
  2. Covidence. Better systematic review management. Accessed October 27, 2020. http://www.covidence.org

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Byrne, P., Demasi, M., Jones, M., Smith, S. M., O’Brien, K. K., & DuBroff, R.
Affiliations
  • Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (IE)
  • Institute for Scientific Freedom, Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Bond University (AU)
  • Independent researcher, Dublin, Ireland
  • University of New Mexico (US)
Corresponding author
Byrne, Paula
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2022-05-01
Volume
182
Issue
5
Pages
474
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4220974542
Cited by
114
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 17
FWCI
5.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
Keywords
statins, LDL cholesterol lowering, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, cardiovascular outcomes, shared decision-making, cardiovascular risk prediction models
MeSH terms
Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Humans, Cholesterol, LDL, Male, Myocardial Infarction, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review