{"id":12043,"date":"2011-09-26T16:09:23","date_gmt":"2011-09-26T20:09:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/?post_type=news&#038;p=12043"},"modified":"2011-09-26T16:09:23","modified_gmt":"2011-09-26T20:09:23","slug":"statins-for-primary-prevention-the-debate-continues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/2011\/09\/26\/statins-for-primary-prevention-the-debate-continues\/","title":{"rendered":"Statins for Primary Prevention: The Debate Continues"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Several leading cardiologists have taken issue with\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/archinte.ama-assn.org\/cgi\/content\/full\/171\/7\/619?maxtoshow=&amp;hits=10&amp;RESULTFORMAT=&amp;fulltext=redberg+grady&amp;searchid=1&amp;FIRSTINDEX=0&amp;resourcetype=HWCIT\">the assertion made by Rita Redberg and the editors of the <em>Archives of Internal Medicine<\/em><\/a>\u00a0that using statins for primary prevention is an example &#8220;of the widespread use of medications with known adverse effects despite the absence of data for patient benefit for these indications.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>In\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/archinte.ama-assn.org\/cgi\/content\/extract\/171\/17\/1593\">a research letter published in the current <\/a><em><a href=\"http:\/\/archinte.ama-assn.org\/cgi\/content\/extract\/171\/17\/1593\">Archives<\/a>,\u00a0<\/em>C. Michael Minder and colleagues (including Sanjay Kaul and Roger Blumenthal) write that they &#8220;believe there is compelling evidence to support the use of statins for primary prevention in patients at high risk&#8230; for developing coronary heart disease (CHD) over the next 10 years.&#8221; They assert that by focusing on short-term mortality, the\u00a0<em>Archives<\/em>\u00a0editors overlooked the substantial benefits of statin therapy for primary prevention in appropriately selected patients.<\/p>\n<p>Minder and colleagues acknowledge that the evidence for a mortality benefit for statins in primary prevention is &#8220;less than robust,&#8221; but that when it comes to morbidity the &#8220;message is clear.&#8221; They cite a Cochrane meta-analysis showing a 34% reduction in revascularizations and a 30% reduction in combined fatal and nonfatal CV endpoints.<\/p>\n<p>The authors argue that it is &#8220;paramount to make the distinction between low-risk and high-risk primary prevention cohorts.&#8221; They agree that primary prevention is unlikely to benefit people with a 10-year Framingham risk score of less than 10%, but that patients &#8220;without known CHD but with diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and tobacco use &#8230; are likely to benefit from statin primary prevention.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/archinte.ama-assn.org\/cgi\/content\/extract\/171\/17\/1594\">response<\/a>, Redberg and colleagues point out that some of the data in support of primary prevention include patients with known CHD. Furthermore, they state, the authors &#8220;do not acknowledge the commonly reported adverse effects associated with statins, including memory loss, muscle pains, weakness, and liver function abnormalities.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Several leading cardiologists have taken issue with\u00a0the assertion made by Rita Redberg and the editors of the Archives of Internal Medicine\u00a0that using statins for primary prevention is an example &#8220;of the widespread use of medications with known adverse effects despite the absence of data for patient benefit for these indications.&#8221; In\u00a0a research letter published in [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":196,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[665,584],"class_list":["post-12043","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-prevention","tag-primary-prevention","tag-statins"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12043","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/196"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12043"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12043\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12043"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12043"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12043"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}