• Online Features  This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (10)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Medical Practice  • Conflict of Interest  • Medical Ethics  • Nutritional and Metabolic Disorders  • Lipids and Lipid Disorders  • Cardiovascular System  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Prognosis/ Outcomes  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Drug Therapy  • Drug Therapy, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Still Much We Don't Know

Lee A. Green, MD, MPH

Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1007-1008.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In this issue of the Archives, Ray et al¹ and de Lorgeril et al² reignite the long-simmering controversy concerning the use of lipid-lowering therapy for the primary prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Each article provides a different and valuable perspective.

Ray and colleagues present what is to date the cleanest and most complete meta-analysis of pharmacological lipid lowering for primary prevention. Limiting the analysis to patients without existing coronary disease is critical because studies that include both groups of patients may appear to show benefit for all patients, when all the benefit accrues to those with existing disease. The patients in their analysis reduced their average levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol from 139 to 98 mg/dL (to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0259) and are therefore representative of those being treated in primary care today. The sample size and the number . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Author Affiliation: Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor.

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Statins and All-Cause Mortality in High-Risk Primary Prevention: A Meta-analysis of 11 Randomized Controlled Trials Involving 65 229 Participants
Kausik K. Ray, Sreenivasa Rao Kondapally Seshasai, Sebhat Erqou, Peter Sever, J. Wouter Jukema, Ian Ford, and Naveed Sattar
Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1024-1031.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cholesterol Lowering, Cardiovascular Diseases, and the Rosuvastatin-JUPITER Controversy: A Critical Reappraisal
Michel de Lorgeril, Patricia Salen, John Abramson, Sylvie Dodin, Tomohito Hamazaki, Willy Kostucki, Harumi Okuyama, Bruno Pavy, and Mikael Rabaeus
Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1032-1036.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Cost-effectiveness of the use of low- and high-potency statins in people at low cardiovascular risk
Conly et al.
CMAJ 2011;183:E1180-E1188.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Statin-induced diabetes: perhaps, it's the tip of the iceberg
Goldstein and Mascitelli
QJM 2011;104:174-178.
FULL TEXT  

Trials by Independent Expert Bodies
Breimer and Mikhailidis
Arch Intern Med 2010;170:2042-2042.
FULL TEXT  

Statins and Primary Prevention for Patients at High Risk for Heart Disease
JWatch General 2010;2010:3-3.
FULL TEXT