Advertising


News

Statins reduce heart attack risk by 30% in healthy over-70s


Jo Roberts


31/08/2026 3:59:56 PM

Following a world-first trial involving 3400 GPs, researchers hope their findings will lead to updated treatment guidelines for managing older patients.

Woman with grey hair faces smiling young doctor.
A world-first trial has provided ‘gold-standard evidence’ that statins can reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke.

Statins have been shown to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke by 30% in people aged over 70, in the results of a world-first clinical trial involving 3400 GPs.
 
Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and presented last week at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2026, the trial tracked and analysed the cardiovascular outcomes of almost 10,000 participants over a 10-year period, up to February 2026.
 
The Statins in Reducing Events in the Elderly (STAREE) Trial by Monash University researchers is the first randomised controlled trial to examine whether the medication commonly prescribed to manage high cholesterol could help older healthy people.
 
Lead researcher Adjunct Professor Sophia Zoungas, from the Monash School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, said the findings ‘will change the way clinicians manage cardiovascular risk in older people’.
 
‘STAREE stands as a benchmark for international clinical trials that can directly inform preventive care worldwide,’ she said.
 
More than 3400 GPs were involved in the trial, for which 9971 participants were recruited from the clinical databases of more than 1000 general medical practices all over Australia.
 
All participants were aged 70 or older who lived independently and had no history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, dementia or other life-limiting conditions.
 
About one quarter were from rural areas, and 51.9% were women.
 
Of the participants, 4984 were assigned to receive atorvastatin and 4987 to receive placebo.
 
Those taking a daily dose of 40 mg atorvastatin were associated with a lower risk of major cardiovascular events than those taking the placebo over an average follow-up of six years.
 
Professor Mark Nelson, a GP and study co-author, told newsGP the trial was a ‘massive effort’ by the practices and the GPs that took part.
 
‘Without GPs and general practices, this wouldn’t have been able to be done,’ he said.
 
‘The Americans who started a study at a similar time, they’re still recruiting, and we’ve completed it. It’s a real indicator of the strength of general practice in Australia.’
 
Professor Nelson said research into statins use within this population group had previously been an ‘evidence-free zone’.
 
‘The evidence in the systematic reviews and meta-analyses was pooled data from studies done in younger populations, but they had some of the over 70s, and that gave you statistical significance until about the age of 75,’ he said.
 
‘But ultimately the highest-level evidence with a particular population or group comes from a very large clinical trial done in that group, so I think this trumps the systematic reviews meta-analyses, and it extends the proven benefit of lipids into the over 75s as well.
 
‘This is gold-standard evidence that if you give it [to your patients], you’ll reduce their cardiovascular event risk.’
 
Professor Zoungas said she now hopes to see ‘updated treatment guidelines to help clinicians make use of this new finding’.
 
Professor Nelson, who was a principal researcher in the ASPREE aspirin trials, said the findings of the STAREE clinical trial ‘will change the guidelines in Australia and right around the world’.
 
‘We saw that with our ASPREE study,’ he said. ‘They changed their guidelines from a low-level recommendation for aspirin in the aged to a higher-level recommendation against, and that was based purely and simply on our study. So, we can expect that to happen again.’
 
However, he said whether a person takes statins as a preventive medication is ‘ultimately a decision between the physician and their patient’.
 
‘They know their patient, and the final arbitrator is always the patient,’ he said.
 
‘We know that they throw away a lot of our scripts before they leave the clinic, including certain prescriptions, so it is something that both the doctor and the patient need to be happy doing.
 
‘But what we can tell them is that you’re likely to gain benefit, and you’re unlikely to be harmed.’
 
Log in below to join the conversation.


cardiovascular event heart attack high cholesterol statin stroke treatment guidelines


newsGP weekly poll To what extent do current digital health systems impact administrative workload in your practice?
 
53%
 
23%
 
6%
 
12%
 
4%
Related



newsGP weekly poll To what extent do current digital health systems impact administrative workload in your practice?

Advertising

Advertising

 

Login to comment

Dr Ronald Schweitzer   1/09/2026 7:43:02 AM

The STAREE trial reported that atorvastatin reduced major cardiovascular events by 30% in healthy Australians over 70. A closer look suggests this headline is misleading.
The trial reported 297 events in the atorvastatin group versus 412 in the placebo group. The largest component was arterial revascularisation—127 versus 221 procedures. This is not a hard endpoint: cardiologists are more likely to intervene in patients with higher cholesterol, regardless of symptoms. Those 94 additional revascularisations may reflect bias rather than true differences in disease burden. Strip them out and the remaining difference is 170 versus 191—not statistically significant.
The 30% relative reduction demands absolute context: 37 people must take the medication for 6 years to prevent 1 event. Atorvastatin showed no significant improvement in disability-free survival or all-cause mortality.
Its headline result appears driven by a procedurally biased endpoint. Patients deserve a more honest account.


Dr Hok-Yee Siu   1/09/2026 9:52:05 AM

I’ve never known a cardiologist to decide to stent or bypass someone because their cholesterol was higher. And the trial was double-blinded anyway.

I agree though, that revascularisation is a softer endpoint and probably makes the 30% headline look more impressive than the hard outcomes alone. But atorvastatin also significantly reduced MI, so I don’t think you can just write the whole result off as procedural bias.


Dr Penelope Elspeth Figtree   1/09/2026 10:36:28 AM

It’s a sad day when the RACGP has decided to repeat the press headlines like any old newspaper and not done some critical thinking with its headline at least. May as well read the SMH. What’s a GP to do when last week stopping statins in 75 year olds according to the Lancet, made no difference? So do patients take them for 5 years 70-75? But both show no difference in QOL. Isn’t that important at 70-80? Less pills in the webster pack and QOL? Mortality is the same too. GP and patients deserve more nuanced reporting and analysis of results beyond the hyperbolic RR numbers from the marketing arm of MONASH university. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-7568(26)00068-1/fulltext


Dr Daniel Peter Ewald   1/09/2026 12:14:16 PM

I agree with Ronald Schweitzer, the NNT is around 35 based on the paper, and the bias in doing stenting could be very real. The headline is based on relative risk not absolute risk which is what matters to patients. However we treat a number of CVD risks with NNT in that range and regard it as worth while. e.g mild hypertension. I wonder if a non-pharmacological intervention for CVD risk would show similar results.


Dr Patrick Wallace   1/09/2026 1:27:38 PM

I agree with Dr Ron on this one.


Dr Ronald Schweitzer   1/09/2026 4:44:53 PM

The STAREE trial reported that atorvastatin reduced major cardiovascular events by 30% in healthy Australians over 70. A closer look suggests this headline is misleading.
The trial reported 297 events in the atorvastatin group versus 412 in the placebo group. The largest component was arterial revascularisation—127 versus 221 procedures. This is not a hard endpoint: cardiologists are more likely to intervene in patients with higher cholesterol, regardless of symptoms. Those 94 additional revascularisations may reflect bias rather than true differences in disease burden. Strip them out and the remaining difference is 170 versus 191—not statistically significant.
The 30% relative reduction demands absolute context: 37 people must take the medication for 6 years to prevent 1 event. Atorvastatin showed no significant improvement in disability-free survival or all-cause mortality.
Its headline result appears driven by a procedurally biased endpoint. Patients deserve a more honest account.


Dr Graham James Lovell   1/09/2026 9:37:29 PM

So put inversely please take this medication for 6 years , that will have an over 97% chance of being of zero benefit to prevent a Cardiac or Stroke event , or benefit you in any other way. Oh and it will cost the System $1,000s of dollars , while we can’t afford enough Aged Care Packages, or Joint Replacement's, or a hundred other underfunded
Services….


Dr Sanjeev Kumar Balakrishnan   1/09/2026 10:04:03 PM

The original three component outcome showed no statistically significant difference between the groups. It was only after revascularisation was added as a fourth component that the statin arm appeared favourable. Without that addition, the trial could not have been presented as a positive result for statins.
Usual tactics of statin trials. These studies muddy the findings of future meta-analysis.