> In other words, in the study population patients who would have had high LDL were likely to be on statins. The had a lower measured LDL value even though they might still be consuming a poor diet and living an unhealthy lifestyle, for example. Statins don't fix everything about poor diet and lifestyle, but they do help with cholesterol.
The implication here is that the LDL-lowering effect of statins is greater than the CVE-reducing effect of statins. That is, if the statins lower your LDL by 30%, that doesn't bring your risk of heart disease the to the same level as someone who naturally has an identical lower LDL.
For sure. Someone who naturally has the lower LDL is more likely to have had that lower LDL for longer - being on statins necessarily indicates they had a high LDL at some point, and the damage is cumulative over your lifetime.
If you blocked your arteries before you got on a statin, it can stabilize the plaque and reduce the risk of rupture, reduce the ability for more to form and increase the blockage, and if it gets your LDL low enough, regress some of it, but it's not going to give you the same arteries as someone who never had that level of plaque deposition to begin with.
The implication here is that the LDL-lowering effect of statins is greater than the CVE-reducing effect of statins. That is, if the statins lower your LDL by 30%, that doesn't bring your risk of heart disease the to the same level as someone who naturally has an identical lower LDL.