What is not here that you would like to see and are qualified to analyze?
This one doesn't require a whole lot of qualification, merely the ability to read critically and, at that, only the title. Here's the money phrase:
"in Women With Elevated High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein"
It's important to read carefully and not overgeneralize. That piece you posted addresses a small subset of women, those with high CRP, which I had already acknowledged. As I said, there is no evidence that women, even women with extant CAD, achieve better outcomes with statin use. Your own article confirms that:
"In the meta-analysis, statin use by women cut primary CVD events by 37% (p < 0.001), but did not significantly affect total mortality."
The Jupiter study is an interesting one, one I often use as an example of how poorly study results are evaluated and reported. Statins are widely prescribed as primary care to reduce LDL, considered (questionably) a risk factor for heart disease. What the Jupiter actually demonstrated was that the benefits of statins is their utility as an anti-inflammatory. Unfortunately, many of those reporting on it were channeled by their biases and didn't get that. |
