The answer to this often highly contentious issue is, as always, it depends.
I do believe you don't tell the whole story. You are giving the relative trial reduction when the absolute reduction in events was far more modest. The comment by Dr. McCormick is also correct. The Jupiitor is not as strong as you make it sound.
Thank you for this post. It’s good to be reminded that we are only seeing 1 extra case of diabetes develop per each 100-200 people treated.
It’s also important to point out that patients recruited for the Jupiter study had elevated markers of inflammation (CRP), and so were more likely to have insulin resistance as you point out.
This baseline patient population with high inflammatory markers does undercut the premise that statins reduce cardiovascular risk for all comers in primary prevention. 44% relative risk reductions in this higher risk population are also pretty hyped up when we see that absolute risk reduction of less than 2%.
Here’s how the Jupiter study chose their subjects:
“ … persons with average to low levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol who are at increased cardiovascular risk due to elevated plasma concentrations of the inflammatory biomarker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP).”
Super article, thank you!