Understanding Recent Statin Study of Advanced PC Patients

[CocoTheAlphaCat]

Recent study--jamanetwork.com/journals/ja... statins are useful in extending lifespan for advanced PC patients.

Specifically, the study of about 120K men said, "concurrent statin use was associated with a 27% reduced risk of overall mortality and a 35% reduced risk of prostate cancer–specific mortality."

So, the question: Does anyone know what "27% reduced risk of overall mortality" blahblahblah means in terms of converting to something concrete for us--whether additional average lifespan, or reduction of X deaths per Y patients over Z years, or something?

I'm not innumerate, but I don't know how to process this "reduced risk" statistic. Thanks, all....

[Tall_Allen]

It is just another observational study, and has no implications for prostate cancer therapy. That said, most of us older guys can extend our lives by taking statins, so it's probably a good idea even if you don't have PCa.

Our best evidence so far is that there is little to no effect of statins on prostate cancer:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...

elifesciences.org/articles/...

[MrG68 in reply to Tall_Allen]

Statins are extremely powerful drugs. Are you suggesting that people just take them anyway 'because it's probably a good idea?' You understand that people get side effects from statins, don't you?

[CocoTheAlphaCat in reply to MrG68]

Hey, whoa--I'm hoping to not have this become a debate on the risks/benefits of statins; rather I was just thinking maybe someone could address the question of exactly what is meant by the phrase, "a 27% reduced risk of overall mortality." Thanks for helping if you can.

[MrG68 in reply to CocoTheAlphaCat]

From my understanding, the risk of mortality is the risk of death in a given year.

So, if there were 100 people who would die in a given year, and some procedure/interaction gave a 27% reduction in mortaility, only 73% would die.

I believe that this statistic is from ANY cause for 'all cause mortaility'. Its hard to tell from your link because I couldn't access it.

[Tall_Allen in reply to MrG68]

No. If your doctor recommends it, take it Don’t take any drugs/supplements you don’t need.

[leebeth in reply to Tall_Allen]

Agreed. Those numbers are not much different than the reduction in overall mortality in the general population in RCTs.

Statins are one of the few classes of drugs that actually have a positive impact on overall mortality.

That said, they still are not for everyone.

[MrG68 in reply to leebeth]

Statins actually have an anti-inflammatory effect. It's the only reason I personally would consider taking them.

[leebeth in reply to MrG68]

Yes, they are. I myself have an elevated lipoprotein a, which is not modifiable by medication or lifestyle, so keeping my LDL under 70 is ideal. My husband, on the other hand, has a very elevated LPA but with his extensive liver mets and decreased life expectancy, it’s not a great idea to add any more drugs that are metastasized by the liver.

Every choice is about balancing risks.

[Tall_Allen in reply to MrG68]

Do you have a problem with inflammation.

[Hidden in reply to Tall_Allen]

So we should ignore the findings of this medical group and listen to "Our best evidence so far is that there is little to no effect of statins on prostate cancer".

I'll continue to take statins.

[Hidden]

The link does not work for me.

[CocoTheAlphaCat in reply to Hidden]

Sorry that link wasn't working; looks like the end of it was snipped. Here it is again in full:

jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...

[MateoBeach]

Your confusion over implications of the statistical conclusions are appropriate! They don’t provide a range of time frames in the various studies. Risks of mortalities over how many years of observation? Without that, Hazard Rations of mortality have no interpretable meaning. (mortality is 100% in the long run.) The last line of their own conclusion is: “Confidence in the evidence was rated low for both outcomes.”