Atorvastatin reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events compared to placebo (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.61-0.82; P<0.001) but did not result in longer disability-free survival in older adults.
RCT (n=9,971)
Double-blind
1:1
Yes
Does atorvastatin 40 mg once daily reduce cardiovascular events and improve disability-free survival in community-dwelling adults ≥70 years without prior cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or dementia?
In older adults without prior cardiovascular disease, atorvastatin 40 mg daily significantly reduced major cardiovascular events but did not extend disability-free survival.
Hazard Ratio: 0.7 (95% CI 0.61–0.82)
Absolute Event Rate: 10.9% vs 15.5%
p-value: p=<0.001
BackgroundThe effectiveness and safety of statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events and the extension of disability-free survival among older adults remain uncertain. MethodsWe conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial at general medical practices across Australia. Community-dwelling adults at least 70 years of age with no history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or dementia were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive atorvastatin at a dose of 40 mg once daily or identical placebo. The two primary end points were a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke, or coronary revascularization (to assess effects on major cardiovascular events) and a composite of death from any cause, dementia, or persistent physical disability (to assess effects on disability-free survival). Analyses were performed according to a hierarchical testing plan. ResultsA total of 9971 participants were enrolled: 4984 were assigned to receive atorvastatin and 4987 to receive placebo. The mean (±SD) age of the participants was 74.7±4.5 years, and 51.9% were women. After a median of 5.9 years, a primary cardiovascular event had occurred in 297 participants (10.9 events per 1000 person-years) in the atorvastatin group and in 412 participants (15.5 events per 1000 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.61 to 0.82; P<0.001). Death from any cause, dementia, or persistent physical disability occurred in 637 participants (21.6 events per 1000 person-years) in the atorvastatin group and in 676 participants (23.0 events per 1000 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05; P=0.25). Serious adverse events occurred in 131 participants (2.7%) in the atorvastatin group and in 129 (2.7%) in the placebo group, with musculoskeletal, hepatobiliary, and diabetes-related adverse events occurring more commonly in the atorvastatin group. ConclusionsTreatment with atorvastatin led to a lower risk of major cardiovascular events than placebo at a median of 5.9 years but did not result in longer disability-free survival among community-dwelling older adults without clinical cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council and others; STAREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02099123.)Atorvastatin and Cardiovascular Events in Older Adults
“The risk of heart attack and stroke is a concern for older people and knowing there is an effective measure for lowering that risk will be a huge reassurance to older people and their families. We hope to see updated guidelines to help clinicians make use of these new findings.”
Presented at ESC 2026 Hot Line; simultaneous NEJM publication; covered by Guardian, MedPage, Healio, ACC, ESC press (dozens of articles); major guideline implications for primary prevention in elderly.
Zoungas et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Primary prevention of cardiovascular events (n=9,971). Atorvastatin vs. Placebo was evaluated on composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke, or coronary revascularization (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.82, p=<0.001). Atorvastatin reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events compared to placebo (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.61-0.82; P<0.001) but did not result in longer disability-free survival in older adults.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: