A point-by-point response to recent arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention

This statement is endorsed by the American society for preventive cardiology

Parag H. Joshi, Sameer Chaudhari, Michael J. Blaha, Steven R. Jones, Seth S. Martin, Wendy S. Post, Christopher P. Cannon, Gregg C. Fonarow, Nathan D. Wong, Ezra Amsterdam, John W. Hirshfeld, Roger S. Blumenthal

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Recently, a debate over the merits of statin therapy in primary prevention was published in the Wall Street Journal. The statin opponent claimed that statins should only be used in secondary prevention and never in any primary-prevention patients at risk for cardiovascular events. In this evidence-based rebuttal to those claims, we review the evidence supporting the efficacy of statin therapy in primary prevention. Cardiovascular risk is a continuum in which those at an elevated risk of events stand to benefit from early initiation of therapy. Statins should not be reserved until after a patient suffers the catastrophic consequences of atherosclerosis. Contrary to the assertions of the statin opponent, this principle has been demonstrated through reductions in heart attacks, strokes, and mortality in numerous randomized controlled primary-prevention statin trials. Furthermore, data show that once a patient tolerates the initial treatment period, the few side effects that subsequently emerge are largely reversible. Accordingly, every major guidelines committee endorses statin use in secondary prevention and selectively in primary prevention for those with risk factors. The foundation for prevention remains increased physical activity, better dietary habits, and smoking cessation. However, prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and death from cardiovascular disease does not have to be all or none - all statin or all lifestyle. In selected at-risk individuals, the combination of pharmacotherapy and lifestyle changes is more effective than either alone. Future investigation in prevention should focus on improving our ability to identify these at-risk individuals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)404-409
Number of pages6
JournalClinical Cardiology
Volume35
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 8 2012

Fingerprint

Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors
Primary Prevention
Cardiology
Secondary Prevention
Life Style
Stroke
Myocardial Infarction
Insurance Claim Review
Aptitude
Feeding Behavior
Smoking Cessation
Atherosclerosis
Cardiovascular Diseases
Therapeutics
Guidelines
Exercise
Drug Therapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

A point-by-point response to recent arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention : This statement is endorsed by the American society for preventive cardiology. / Joshi, Parag H.; Chaudhari, Sameer; Blaha, Michael J.; Jones, Steven R.; Martin, Seth S.; Post, Wendy S.; Cannon, Christopher P.; Fonarow, Gregg C.; Wong, Nathan D.; Amsterdam, Ezra; Hirshfeld, John W.; Blumenthal, Roger S.

In: Clinical Cardiology, Vol. 35, No. 7, 08.06.2012, p. 404-409.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Joshi, PH, Chaudhari, S, Blaha, MJ, Jones, SR, Martin, SS, Post, WS, Cannon, CP, Fonarow, GC, Wong, ND, Amsterdam, E, Hirshfeld, JW & Blumenthal, RS 2012, 'A point-by-point response to recent arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention: This statement is endorsed by the American society for preventive cardiology', Clinical Cardiology, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 404-409. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.22016
Joshi, Parag H. ; Chaudhari, Sameer ; Blaha, Michael J. ; Jones, Steven R. ; Martin, Seth S. ; Post, Wendy S. ; Cannon, Christopher P. ; Fonarow, Gregg C. ; Wong, Nathan D. ; Amsterdam, Ezra ; Hirshfeld, John W. ; Blumenthal, Roger S. / A point-by-point response to recent arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention : This statement is endorsed by the American society for preventive cardiology. In: Clinical Cardiology. 2012 ; Vol. 35, No. 7. pp. 404-409.
@article{477e85ba8fc648b8b8e204c2c7332a10,
title = "A point-by-point response to recent arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention: This statement is endorsed by the American society for preventive cardiology",
abstract = "Recently, a debate over the merits of statin therapy in primary prevention was published in the Wall Street Journal. The statin opponent claimed that statins should only be used in secondary prevention and never in any primary-prevention patients at risk for cardiovascular events. In this evidence-based rebuttal to those claims, we review the evidence supporting the efficacy of statin therapy in primary prevention. Cardiovascular risk is a continuum in which those at an elevated risk of events stand to benefit from early initiation of therapy. Statins should not be reserved until after a patient suffers the catastrophic consequences of atherosclerosis. Contrary to the assertions of the statin opponent, this principle has been demonstrated through reductions in heart attacks, strokes, and mortality in numerous randomized controlled primary-prevention statin trials. Furthermore, data show that once a patient tolerates the initial treatment period, the few side effects that subsequently emerge are largely reversible. Accordingly, every major guidelines committee endorses statin use in secondary prevention and selectively in primary prevention for those with risk factors. The foundation for prevention remains increased physical activity, better dietary habits, and smoking cessation. However, prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and death from cardiovascular disease does not have to be all or none - all statin or all lifestyle. In selected at-risk individuals, the combination of pharmacotherapy and lifestyle changes is more effective than either alone. Future investigation in prevention should focus on improving our ability to identify these at-risk individuals.",
author = "Joshi, {Parag H.} and Sameer Chaudhari and Blaha, {Michael J.} and Jones, {Steven R.} and Martin, {Seth S.} and Post, {Wendy S.} and Cannon, {Christopher P.} and Fonarow, {Gregg C.} and Wong, {Nathan D.} and Ezra Amsterdam and Hirshfeld, {John W.} and Blumenthal, {Roger S.}",
year = "2012",
month = "6",
day = "8",
doi = "10.1002/clc.22016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "404--409",
journal = "Clinical Cardiology",
issn = "0160-9289",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A point-by-point response to recent arguments against the use of statins in primary prevention

T2 - This statement is endorsed by the American society for preventive cardiology

AU - Joshi, Parag H.

AU - Chaudhari, Sameer

AU - Blaha, Michael J.

AU - Jones, Steven R.

AU - Martin, Seth S.

AU - Post, Wendy S.

AU - Cannon, Christopher P.

AU - Fonarow, Gregg C.

AU - Wong, Nathan D.

AU - Amsterdam, Ezra

AU - Hirshfeld, John W.

AU - Blumenthal, Roger S.

PY - 2012/6/8

Y1 - 2012/6/8

N2 - Recently, a debate over the merits of statin therapy in primary prevention was published in the Wall Street Journal. The statin opponent claimed that statins should only be used in secondary prevention and never in any primary-prevention patients at risk for cardiovascular events. In this evidence-based rebuttal to those claims, we review the evidence supporting the efficacy of statin therapy in primary prevention. Cardiovascular risk is a continuum in which those at an elevated risk of events stand to benefit from early initiation of therapy. Statins should not be reserved until after a patient suffers the catastrophic consequences of atherosclerosis. Contrary to the assertions of the statin opponent, this principle has been demonstrated through reductions in heart attacks, strokes, and mortality in numerous randomized controlled primary-prevention statin trials. Furthermore, data show that once a patient tolerates the initial treatment period, the few side effects that subsequently emerge are largely reversible. Accordingly, every major guidelines committee endorses statin use in secondary prevention and selectively in primary prevention for those with risk factors. The foundation for prevention remains increased physical activity, better dietary habits, and smoking cessation. However, prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and death from cardiovascular disease does not have to be all or none - all statin or all lifestyle. In selected at-risk individuals, the combination of pharmacotherapy and lifestyle changes is more effective than either alone. Future investigation in prevention should focus on improving our ability to identify these at-risk individuals.

AB - Recently, a debate over the merits of statin therapy in primary prevention was published in the Wall Street Journal. The statin opponent claimed that statins should only be used in secondary prevention and never in any primary-prevention patients at risk for cardiovascular events. In this evidence-based rebuttal to those claims, we review the evidence supporting the efficacy of statin therapy in primary prevention. Cardiovascular risk is a continuum in which those at an elevated risk of events stand to benefit from early initiation of therapy. Statins should not be reserved until after a patient suffers the catastrophic consequences of atherosclerosis. Contrary to the assertions of the statin opponent, this principle has been demonstrated through reductions in heart attacks, strokes, and mortality in numerous randomized controlled primary-prevention statin trials. Furthermore, data show that once a patient tolerates the initial treatment period, the few side effects that subsequently emerge are largely reversible. Accordingly, every major guidelines committee endorses statin use in secondary prevention and selectively in primary prevention for those with risk factors. The foundation for prevention remains increased physical activity, better dietary habits, and smoking cessation. However, prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and death from cardiovascular disease does not have to be all or none - all statin or all lifestyle. In selected at-risk individuals, the combination of pharmacotherapy and lifestyle changes is more effective than either alone. Future investigation in prevention should focus on improving our ability to identify these at-risk individuals.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863464543&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863464543&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/clc.22016

DO - 10.1002/clc.22016

M3 - Review article

VL - 35

SP - 404

EP - 409

JO - Clinical Cardiology

JF - Clinical Cardiology

SN - 0160-9289

IS - 7

ER -