L Blackwell

Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins.

BACKGROUND Results of previous randomised trials have shown that interventions that lower LDL cholesterol concentrations can significantly reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) and other major vascular events in a wide range of individuals. But each separate trial has limited power to assess particular outcomes or particular categories of participant. METHODS A prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 individuals in 14 randomised trials of statins was done. Weighted estimates were obtained of effects on different clinical outcomes per 1.0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. FINDINGS During a mean of 5 years, there were 8186 deaths, 14,348 individuals had major vascular events, and 5103 developed cancer. Mean LDL cholesterol differences at 1 year ranged from 0.35 mmol/L to 1.77 mmol/L (mean 1.09) in these trials. There was a 12% proportional reduction in all-cause mortality per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (rate ratio [RR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.84-0.91; p<0.0001). This reflected a 19% reduction in coronary mortality (0.81, 0.76-0.85; p<0.0001), and non-significant reductions in non-coronary vascular mortality (0.93, 0.83-1.03; p=0.2) and non-vascular mortality (0.95, 0.90-1.01; p=0.1). There were corresponding reductions in myocardial infarction or coronary death (0.77, 0.74-0.80; p<0.0001), in the need for coronary revascularisation (0.76, 0.73-0.80; p<0.0001), in fatal or non-fatal stroke (0.83, 0.78-0.88; p<0.0001), and, combining these, of 21% in any such major vascular event (0.79, 0.77-0.81; p<0.0001). The proportional reduction in major vascular events differed significantly (p<0.0001) according to the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol achieved, but not otherwise. These benefits were significant within the first year, but were greater in subsequent years. Taking all years together, the overall reduction of about one fifth per mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction translated into 48 (95% CI 39-57) fewer participants having major vascular events per 1000 among those with pre-existing CHD at baseline, compared with 25 (19-31) per 1000 among participants with no such history. There was no evidence that statins increased the incidence of cancer overall (1.00, 0.95-1.06; p=0.9) or at any particular site. INTERPRETATION Statin therapy can safely reduce the 5-year incidence of major coronary events, coronary revascularisation, and stroke by about one fifth per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, largely irrespective of the initial lipid profile or other presenting characteristics. The absolute benefit relates chiefly to an individuals absolute risk of such events and to the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol achieved. These findings reinforce the need to consider prolonged statin treatment with substantial LDL cholesterol reductions in all patients at high risk of any type of major vascular event.

Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials.

Searching As reported in the study protocol (see Other Publications of Related Interest), potentially eligible studies were identified prospectively by computer-aided literature searches, manual searches of journals, examination of reference lists of trials and review articles, examination of abstracts and conference proceedings, by collaboration with the trial register of the International Committee on Thrombosis and Haemostasis and by contacting colleagues, collaborators and drug manufacturers.

Aspirin in the primary and secondary prevention of vascular disease: collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials.

Summary Background Low-dose aspirin is of definite and substantial net benefit for many people who already have occlusive vascular disease. We have assessed the benefits and risks in primary prevention. Methods We undertook meta-analyses of serious vascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death) and major bleeds in six primary prevention trials (95 000 individuals at low average risk, 660 000 person-years, 3554 serious vascular events) and 16 secondary prevention trials (17 000 individuals at high average risk, 43 000 person-years, 3306 serious vascular events) that compared long-term aspirin versus control. We report intention-to-treat analyses of first events during the scheduled treatment period. Findings In the primary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a 12% proportional reduction in serious vascular events (0·51% aspirin vs 0·57% control per year, p=0·0001), due mainly to a reduction of about a fifth in non-fatal myocardial infarction (0·18% vs 0·23% per year, p<0·0001). The net effect on stroke was not significant (0·20% vs 0·21% per year, p=0·4: haemorrhagic stroke 0·04% vs 0·03%, p=0·05; other stroke 0·16% vs 0·18% per year, p=0·08). Vascular mortality did not differ significantly (0·19% vs 0·19% per year, p=0·7). Aspirin allocation increased major gastrointestinal and extracranial bleeds (0·10% vs 0·07% per year, p<0·0001), and the main risk factors for coronary disease were also risk factors for bleeding. In the secondary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a greater absolute reduction in serious vascular events (6·7% vs 8·2% per year, p<0.0001), with a non-significant increase in haemorrhagic stroke but reductions of about a fifth in total stroke (2·08% vs 2·54% per year, p=0·002) and in coronary events (4·3% vs 5·3% per year, p<0·0001). In both primary and secondary prevention trials, the proportional reductions in the aggregate of all serious vascular events seemed similar for men and women. Interpretation In primary prevention without previous disease, aspirin is of uncertain net value as the reduction in occlusive events needs to be weighed against any increase in major bleeds. Further trials are in progress. Funding UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the European Community Biomed Programme.BACKGROUND Low-dose aspirin is of definite and substantial net benefit for many people who already have occlusive vascular disease. We have assessed the benefits and risks in primary prevention. METHODS We undertook meta-analyses of serious vascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death) and major bleeds in six primary prevention trials (95,000 individuals at low average risk, 660,000 person-years, 3554 serious vascular events) and 16 secondary prevention trials (17,000 individuals at high average risk, 43,000 person-years, 3306 serious vascular events) that compared long-term aspirin versus control. We report intention-to-treat analyses of first events during the scheduled treatment period. FINDINGS In the primary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a 12% proportional reduction in serious vascular events (0.51% aspirin vs 0.57% control per year, p=0.0001), due mainly to a reduction of about a fifth in non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.18%vs 0.23% per year, p<0.0001). The net effect on stroke was not significant (0.20%vs 0.21% per year, p=0.4: haemorrhagic stroke 0.04%vs 0.03%, p=0.05; other stroke 0.16%vs 0.18% per year, p=0.08). Vascular mortality did not differ significantly (0.19%vs 0.19% per year, p=0.7). Aspirin allocation increased major gastrointestinal and extracranial bleeds (0.10%vs 0.07% per year, p<0.0001), and the main risk factors for coronary disease were also risk factors for bleeding. In the secondary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a greater absolute reduction in serious vascular events (6.7%vs 8.2% per year, p<0.0001), with a non-significant increase in haemorrhagic stroke but reductions of about a fifth in total stroke (2.08%vs 2.54% per year, p=0.002) and in coronary events (4.3%vs 5.3% per year, p<0.0001). In both primary and secondary prevention trials, the proportional reductions in the aggregate of all serious vascular events seemed similar for men and women. INTERPRETATION In primary prevention without previous disease, aspirin is of uncertain net value as the reduction in occlusive events needs to be weighed against any increase in major bleeds. Further trials are in progress. FUNDING UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the European Community Biomed Programme.

Efficacy of cholesterol-lowering therapy in 18 686 people with diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statins: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Although statin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events in people with diabetes mellitus, there is uncertainty about the effects on particular outcomes and whether such effects depend on the type of diabetes, lipid profile, or other factors. We undertook a prospective meta-analysis to help resolve these uncertainties. METHODS We analysed data from 18 686 individuals with diabetes (1466 with type 1 and 17,220 with type 2) in the context of a further 71,370 without diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statin therapy. Weighted estimates were obtained of effects on clinical outcomes per 1.0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. FINDINGS During a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, there were 3247 major vascular events in people with diabetes. There was a 9% proportional reduction in all-cause mortality per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in participants with diabetes (rate ratio [RR] 0.91, 99% CI 0.82-1.01; p=0.02), which was similar to the 13% reduction in those without diabetes (0.87, 0.82-0.92; p<0.0001). This finding reflected a significant reduction in vascular mortality (0.87, 0.76-1.00; p=0.008) and no effect on non-vascular mortality (0.97, 0.82-1.16; p=0.7) in participants with diabetes. There was a significant 21% proportional reduction in major vascular events per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in people with diabetes (0.79, 0.72-0.86; p<0.0001), which was similar to the effect observed in those without diabetes (0.79, 0.76-0.82; p<0.0001). In diabetic participants there were reductions in myocardial infarction or coronary death (0.78, 0.69-0.87; p<0.0001), coronary revascularisation (0.75, 0.64-0.88; p<0.0001), and stroke (0.79, 0.67-0.93; p=0.0002). Among people with diabetes the proportional effects of statin therapy were similar irrespective of whether there was a prior history of vascular disease and irrespective of other baseline characteristics. After 5 years, 42 (95% CI 30-55) fewer people with diabetes had major vascular events per 1000 allocated statin therapy. INTERPRETATION Statin therapy should be considered for all diabetic individuals who are at sufficiently high risk of vascular events.

Effect of treatment delay, age, and stroke severity on the effects of intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase for acute ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials

Summary Background Alteplase is effective for treatment of acute ischaemic stroke but debate continues about its use after longer times since stroke onset, in older patients, and among patients who have had the least or most severe strokes. We assessed the role of these factors in affecting good stroke outcome in patients given alteplase. Methods We did a pre-specified meta-analysis of individual patient data from 6756 patients in nine randomised trials comparing alteplase with placebo or open control. We included all completed randomised phase 3 trials of intravenous alteplase for treatment of acute ischaemic stroke for which data were available. Retrospective checks confirmed that no eligible trials had been omitted. We defined a good stroke outcome as no significant disability at 3–6 months, defined by a modified Rankin Score of 0 or 1. Additional outcomes included symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (defined by type 2 parenchymal haemorrhage within 7 days and, separately, by the SITS-MOST definition of parenchymal type 2 haemorrhage within 36 h), fatal intracranial haemorrhage within 7 days, and 90-day mortality. Findings Alteplase increased the odds of a good stroke outcome, with earlier treatment associated with bigger proportional benefit. Treatment within 3·0 h resulted in a good outcome for 259 (32·9%) of 787 patients who received alteplase versus 176 (23·1%) of 762 who received control (OR 1·75, 95% CI 1·35–2·27); delay of greater than 3·0 h, up to 4·5 h, resulted in good outcome for 485 (35·3%) of 1375 versus 432 (30·1%) of 1437 (OR 1·26, 95% CI 1·05–1·51); and delay of more than 4·5 h resulted in good outcome for 401 (32·6%) of 1229 versus 357 (30·6%) of 1166 (OR 1·15, 95% CI 0·95–1·40). Proportional treatment benefits were similar irrespective of age or stroke severity. Alteplase significantly increased the odds of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (type 2 parenchymal haemorrhage definition 231 [6·8%] of 3391 vs 44 [1·3%] of 3365, OR 5·55, 95% CI 4·01–7·70, p<0·0001; SITS-MOST definition 124 [3·7%] vs 19 [0·6%], OR 6·67, 95% CI 4·11–10·84, p<0·0001) and of fatal intracranial haemorrhage within 7 days (91 [2·7%] vs 13 [0·4%]; OR 7·14, 95% CI 3·98–12·79, p<0·0001). The relative increase in fatal intracranial haemorrhage from alteplase was similar irrespective of treatment delay, age, or stroke severity, but the absolute excess risk attributable to alteplase was bigger among patients who had more severe strokes. There was no excess in other early causes of death and no significant effect on later causes of death. Consequently, mortality at 90 days was 608 (17·9%) in the alteplase group versus 556 (16·5%) in the control group (hazard ratio 1·11, 95% CI 0·99–1·25, p=0·07). Taken together, therefore, despite an average absolute increased risk of early death from intracranial haemorrhage of about 2%, by 3–6 months this risk was offset by an average absolute increase in disability-free survival of about 10% for patients treated within 3·0 h and about 5% for patients treated after 3·0 h, up to 4·5 h. Interpretation Irrespective of age or stroke severity, and despite an increased risk of fatal intracranial haemorrhage during the first few days after treatment, alteplase significantly improves the overall odds of a good stroke outcome when delivered within 4·5 h of stroke onset, with earlier treatment associated with bigger proportional benefits. Funding UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, University of Glasgow, University of Edinburgh.

Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy

This Review is intended to help clinicians, patients, and the public make informed decisions about statin therapy for the prevention of heart attacks and strokes. It explains how the evidence that is available from randomised controlled trials yields reliable information about both the efficacy and safety of statin therapy. In addition, it discusses how claims that statins commonly cause adverse effects reflect a failure to recognise the limitations of other sources of evidence about the effects of treatment. Large-scale evidence from randomised trials shows that statin therapy reduces the risk of major vascular events (ie, coronary deaths or myocardial infarctions, strokes, and coronary revascularisation procedures) by about one-quarter for each mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol during each year (after the first) that it continues to be taken. The absolute benefits of statin therapy depend on an individuals absolute risk of occlusive vascular events and the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol that is achieved. For example, lowering LDL cholesterol by 2 mmol/L (77 mg/dL) with an effective low-cost statin regimen (eg, atorvastatin 40 mg daily, costing about £2 per month) for 5 years in 10 000 patients would typically prevent major vascular events from occurring in about 1000 patients (ie, 10% absolute benefit) with pre-existing occlusive vascular disease (secondary prevention) and in 500 patients (ie, 5% absolute benefit) who are at increased risk but have not yet had a vascular event (primary prevention). Statin therapy has been shown to reduce vascular disease risk during each year it continues to be taken, so larger absolute benefits would accrue with more prolonged therapy, and these benefits persist long term. The only serious adverse events that have been shown to be caused by long-term statin therapy-ie, adverse effects of the statin-are myopathy (defined as muscle pain or weakness combined with large increases in blood concentrations of creatine kinase), new-onset diabetes mellitus, and, probably, haemorrhagic stroke. Typically, treatment of 10 000 patients for 5 years with an effective regimen (eg, atorvastatin 40 mg daily) would cause about 5 cases of myopathy (one of which might progress, if the statin therapy is not stopped, to the more severe condition of rhabdomyolysis), 50-100 new cases of diabetes, and 5-10 haemorrhagic strokes. However, any adverse impact of these side-effects on major vascular events has already been taken into account in the estimates of the absolute benefits. Statin therapy may cause symptomatic adverse events (eg, muscle pain or weakness) in up to about 50-100 patients (ie, 0·5-1·0% absolute harm) per 10 000 treated for 5 years. However, placebo-controlled randomised trials have shown definitively that almost all of the symptomatic adverse events that are attributed to statin therapy in routine practice are not actually caused by it (ie, they represent misattribution). The large-scale evidence available from randomised trials also indicates that it is unlikely that large absolute excesses in other serious adverse events still await discovery. Consequently, any further findings that emerge about the effects of statin therapy would not be expected to alter materially the balance of benefits and harms. It is, therefore, of concern that exaggerated claims about side-effect rates with statin therapy may be responsible for its under-use among individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular events. For, whereas the rare cases of myopathy and any muscle-related symptoms that are attributed to statin therapy generally resolve rapidly when treatment is stopped, the heart attacks or strokes that may occur if statin therapy is stopped unnecessarily can be devastating.

Lack of effect of lowering LDL cholesterol on cancer: meta-analysis of individual data from 175,000 people in 27 randomised trials of statin therapy.

Background Statin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events, but uncertainty remains about potential effects on cancer. We sought to provide a detailed assessment of any effects on cancer of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with a statin using individual patient records from 175,000 patients in 27 large-scale statin trials. Methods and Findings Individual records of 134,537 participants in 22 randomised trials of statin versus control (median duration 4.8 years) and 39,612 participants in 5 trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy (median duration 5.1 years) were obtained. Reducing LDL-C with a statin for about 5 years had no effect on newly diagnosed cancer or on death from such cancers in either the trials of statin versus control (cancer incidence: 3755 [1.4% per year [py]] versus 3738 [1.4% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.96-1.05]; cancer mortality: 1365 [0.5% py] versus 1358 [0.5% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93–1.08]) or in the trials of more versus less statin (cancer incidence: 1466 [1.6% py] vs 1472 [1.6% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93–1.07]; cancer mortality: 447 [0.5% py] versus 481 [0.5% py], RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82–1.06]). Moreover, there was no evidence of any effect of reducing LDL-C with statin therapy on cancer incidence or mortality at any of 23 individual categories of sites, with increasing years of treatment, for any individual statin, or in any given subgroup. In particular, among individuals with low baseline LDL-C (<2 mmol/L), there was no evidence that further LDL-C reduction (from about 1.7 to 1.3 mmol/L) increased cancer risk (381 [1.6% py] versus 408 [1.7% py]; RR 0.92 [99% CI 0.76–1.10]). Conclusions In 27 randomised trials, a median of five years of statin therapy had no effect on the incidence of, or mortality from, any type of cancer (or the aggregate of all cancer).

Prediction of ESRD and Death Among People With CKD: The Chronic Renal Impairment in Birmingham (CRIB) Prospective Cohort Study

Background Validated prediction scores are required to assess the risks of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and death in individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Study Design Prospective cohort study with validation in a separate cohort. Setting & Participants Cox regression was used to assess the relevance of baseline characteristics to risk of ESRD (mean follow-up, 4.1 years) and death (mean follow-up, 6.0 years) in 382 patients with stages 3-5 CKD not initially on dialysis therapy in the Chronic Renal Impairment in Birmingham (CRIB) Study. Resultant risk prediction equations were tested in a separate cohort of 213 patients with CKD (the East Kent cohort). Factors 44 baseline characteristics (including 30 blood and urine assays). Outcomes ESRD and all-cause mortality. Results In the CRIB cohort, 190 patients reached ESRD (12.1%/y) and 150 died (6.5%/y). Each 30% lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate was associated with a 3-fold higher ESRD rate and a 1.3-fold higher death rate. After adjustment for each other, only baseline creatinine level, serum phosphate level, urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, and female sex remained strongly (P < 0.01) predictive of ESRD. For death, age, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, troponin T level, and cigarette smoking remained strongly predictive of risk. Using these factors to predict outcomes in the East Kent cohort yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ie, C statistic) of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.87-0.96) for ESRD and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75-0.89) for death. Limitations Other important factors may have been missed because of limited study power. Conclusions Simple laboratory measures of kidney and cardiac function plus age, sex, and smoking history can be used to help identify patients with CKD at highest risk of ESRD and death. Larger cohort studies are required to further validate these results.

Alemtuzumab-based induction treatment versus basiliximab-based induction treatment in kidney transplantation (the 3C Study): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) reduce short-term kidney transplant failure, but might contribute to transplant failure in the long-term. The role of alemtuzumab (a potent lymphocyte-depleting antibody) as an induction treatment followed by an early reduction in CNI and mycophenolate exposure and steroid avoidance, after kidney transplantation is uncertain. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of alemtuzumab-based induction treatment compared with basiliximab-based induction treatment in patients receiving kidney transplants. METHODS For this randomised trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years and older who were scheduled to receive a kidney transplant in the next 24 h from 18 transplant centres in the UK. Using minimised randomisation, we randomly assigned patients (1:1; minimised for age, sex, and immunological risk) to either alemtuzumab-based induction treatment (ie, alemtuzumab followed by low-dose tacrolimus and mycophenolate without steroids) or basiliximab-based induction treatment (basiliximab followed by standard-dose tacrolimus, mycophenolate, and prednisolone). Participants were reviewed at discharge from hospital and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after transplantation. The primary outcome was biopsy-proven acute rejection at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01120028, and isrctn.org, number ISRCTN88894088. FINDINGS Between Oct 4, 2010, and Jan 21, 2013, we randomly assigned 852 participants to treatment: 426 to alemtuzumab-based treatment and 426 to basiliximab-based treatment. Overall, individuals allocated to alemtuzumab-based treatment had a 58% proportional reduction in biopsy-proven acute rejection compared with those allocated to basiliximab-based treatment (31 [7%] patients in the alemtuzumab group vs 68 [16%] patients in the basiliximab group; hazard ratio (HR) 0·42, 95% CI 0·28-0·64; log-rank p<0·0001). We detected no between-group difference in treatment effect on transplant failure during the first 6 months (16 [4%] patients vs 13 [3%] patients; HR 1·23, 0·59-2·55; p=0·58) or serious infection (135 [32%] patients vs 136 [32%] patients; HR 1·02, 0·80-1·29; p=0·88). During the first 6 months after transplantation, 11 (3%) patients given alemtuzumab-based treatment and six (1%) patients given basiliximab-based treatment died (HR 1·79, 95% CI 0·66-4·83; p=0·25). INTERPRETATION Compared with standard basiliximab-based treatment, alemtuzumab-based induction therapy followed by reduced CNI and mycophenolate exposure and steroid avoidance reduced the risk of biopsy-proven acute rejection in a broad range of patients receiving a kidney transplant. Long-term follow-up of this trial will assess whether these effects translate into differences in long-term transplant function and survival. FUNDING UK National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research and Development Programme, Pfizer, and Novartis UK.

Impact of renal function on the effects of LDL cholesterol lowering with statin-based regimens: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 28 randomised trials

BACKGROUND Statin therapy is effective for the prevention of coronary heart disease and stroke in patients with mild-to-moderate chronic kidney disease, but its effects in individuals with more advanced disease, particularly those undergoing dialysis, are uncertain. METHODS We did a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 28 trials (n=183 419), examining effects of statin-based therapy on major vascular events (major coronary event [non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death], stroke, or coronary revascularisation) and cause-specific mortality. Participants were subdivided into categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at baseline. Treatment effects were estimated with rate ratio (RR) per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. FINDINGS Overall, statin-based therapy reduced the risk of a first major vascular event by 21% (RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·77-0·81; p<0·0001) per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. Smaller relative effects on major vascular events were observed as eGFR declined (p=0·008 for trend; RR 0·78, 99% CI 0·75-0·82 for eGFR ≥60 mL/min per 1·73 m(2); 0·76, 0·70-0·81 for eGFR 45 to <60 mL/min per 1·73 m(2); 0·85, 0·75-0·96 for eGFR 30 to <45 mL/min per 1·73 m(2); 0·85, 0·71-1·02 for eGFR <30 mL/min per 1·73 m(2) and not on dialysis; and 0·94, 0·79-1·11 for patients on dialysis). Analogous trends by baseline renal function were seen for major coronary events (p=0·01 for trend) and vascular mortality (p=0·03 for trend), but there was no significant trend for coronary revascularisation (p=0·90). Reducing LDL cholesterol with statin-based therapy had no effect on non-vascular mortality, irrespective of eGFR. INTERPRETATION Even after allowing for the smaller reductions in LDL cholesterol achieved by patients with more advanced chronic kidney disease, and for differences in outcome definitions between dialysis trials, the relative reductions in major vascular events observed with statin-based treatment became smaller as eGFR declined, with little evidence of benefit in patients on dialysis. In patients with chronic kidney disease, statin-based regimens should be chosen to maximise the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol to achieve the largest treatment benefits. FUNDING UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, European Community Biomed Programme, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian National Heart Foundation.