It is not clear whether statin treatment is beneficial in a primary prevention setting, that is in people without prevalent CVD who are at relatively lower risk. The recent results of the JUPITER trial1 have fuelled an intense debate whether statins should be given for primary prevention of CVD.
This study therefore questions the widespread practice of prescribing statins to middle-aged patients with an average cardiovascular risk profile who do not have overt CVD. Statin use in low risk young patients remains very controversial
Early statin trials reported significant mortality benefits, yet serious concerns have been raised in some studies regarding biased results, premature trial terminations, under reporting of adverse events, high numbers of patients lost to follow-up and oversight by the pharmaceutical company sponsor
the above is an excellent article that explains both the history and problems of statin therapy. The name of the game is ABSOLUTE Risk reduction or ARR, Relative risk reduction is a ploy use by pharma to promote a drug's benefit. If I say Aspirin reduces your risk of a heart attack by 25% I would probably be correct but not accurate. The Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) is the percentage your risk is reduced by a therapy. So, 25% sounds great except it is deceptive because it doesn't use your actual risk of a heart attack. If you are a young healthy male in his 30's your risk of a heart attack may be only 4%
if I give you aspirin and it reduces your risk by 25% it actually reduces your risk to just 3%, only a 1% ABSOLUTE Risk Reduction (not 25% RRR) and that reduction is at a 3% increase for dying from a bleed. I could actually increase your all cause or total mortality by 2%. I may spare you from dying in your old age from a heart attack because you die middle age from head bleed or hemorrhagic stroke. To understand medical therapies you have to understand how statistics are manipulated
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."