There was a large analysis of a large number of statin studies years ago that pulled out this and that data and concluded if you had a previous heart attack statins prevented a certain amount of deaths, if you had not had a previous attack the statins had zero death benefit. Other studies dispute that somewhat, you read enough you can find a dizzying array of opinions on statins.
A recent analysis not related to just deaths had this note:
"There is substantial disagreement on which patients without known cardiovascular disease (CVD) should take statins. In this latest effort to address potential benefits and harms of statins for primary prevention, a Swiss team created a complex model based on data from randomized trials and observational studies. The model also incorporated competing risks for non–CV-related death and results of a survey of patients' preferences for avoiding adverse CV outcomes and statin side effects.
The 10-year predicted CVD risk above which the model predicted net benefit ranged from 14% (for men in their 40s) to 21% (for 70- to 75-year-old men), and from 17% (for women in their 40s) to 22% (for 70- to 75-year-old women)."
This analyses tried to adjust for risks of taking statins. I think generally statins are over-prescribed but mainly due to uncertainty as to which people will really benefit. Weighing benefit vs risk is always a balance.
It would have been interesting to see RI results before statins were a thing and you could really compare the 2 as front line treatment, never going to happen now.
