Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study I-FAT-110 in-depth review

Lowering LDL cholesterol prevents heart attacks and strokes at all ages

Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in older people: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 28 randomised controlled trials.

Overview

Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. Lancet 2019 · PMID 30712900 · DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31942-1

21% fewer major vascular events per 1 mmol/L lower LDL, including older people.

Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Test statins at different ages.

How was the study done?

IPD meta-analysis of 28 RCTs.

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

186,854 people.

What was actually found?

Benefit at all ages.

How large was the observed effect?

RR 0.79 per mmol/L.

What do the results mean in everyday life?

High LDL matters even in older age.

What are the study's limitations?

Drug trials.

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Contradicts the claim.

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

Universal.

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Cannot directly test dietary cholesterol.

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration
Journal
Lancet
Year
2019
Identifier
PMID 30712900 DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31942-1
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

Australian NHMRC, NIHR Oxford BRC, UK MRC, British Heart Foundation.

2. Research question

Does LDL lowering with statins work at older ages?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Meta-analysis – Individual-participant-data meta-analysis of 28 large statin RCTs
Population

186,854 trial participants; 14,483 aged >75

Country

Multinational

Period

median 4.9 y

Sample size

186,854

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Trials >=1000 participants, >=2 y

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

Statin or more intensive statin

Comparator

Control or less intensive

Endpoints

Major vascular events, cause-specific mortality, cancer

Statistical methods

RR per 1.0 mmol/L LDL reduction; trend tests across six age groups

5. Actual results

Results

Major vascular events RR 0.79 (0.77-0.81) per 1.0 mmol/L LDL-C reduction, significant in all age groups; major coronary events 0.76 (0.73-0.79); stroke 0.84 (0.80-0.89); vascular mortality 0.88 (0.85-0.91). No effect on non-vascular mortality, cancer death or incidence at any age. Less direct evidence for >75 y without vascular disease.

Absolute risks

not reported

Authors' conclusion

Statin therapy produces significant reductions in major vascular events irrespective of age.

6. Strengths

  • IPD
  • Randomised
  • Large

7. Weaknesses

  • Drug trials (LDL lowering by statins, not diet)
  • Fewer data >75 without CVD

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
AMSTAR 2
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
low
Rationale

Gold-standard IPD.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

Per-mmol/L proportional effects; precise.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Randomised evidence that lowering LDL cholesterol prevents vascular events in all age groups, including older people where cohort studies show inverse associations; contradicts 'cholesterol is not your enemy' and 'arteries cannot be blocked by fat'.

11. Independent contrary findings

I-FAT-109 (observational).

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

Universal.

13. Overall methodological judgement

High-certainty contradicting evidence.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualityhigh
Risk of biaslow
Precision of resultshigh
Directnessindirect
Reproducibilityreplicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceconsistent
Regional transferabilitymoderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

Primary prevention >75.

15. Linked fact checks