The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
meaning and similar risk individuals women benefit from statins just as much as men in both primary prevention whether it was a 15 percent reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events as well as for every one millimole per liter or 39 milligrams per deciliter lowering of LDL and in secondary prevention a little bit greater 22 reduction as well as all-cause mortality was lower in women with statins
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
women benefit from statins just as much as men in both primary prevention without interaction by sex
there's some misconceptions out there that I still hear people cite this false statement that statins don't work in women in primary prevention and that's completely not true you know in the older studies they just didn't enroll enough women in trials and then primary prevention you know they're at lower risk so they're less likely to have events during the short terms of the trials but you know now we have enough trials the data is in and meta-analysis that included you know over 18 randomized clinical trials over 40 000 women have shown that statins benefit women in both primary and secondary prevention without interaction by sex
I think we have to look seriously at finding ways of improving our selection of patients for statin use, and that, again, is driving my research.