A large trial in Australia has tested a question doctors have argued about for years: should healthy people over 70, with no history of heart disease, take a statin, the common cholesterol-lowering pill? The answer from the trial, called STAREE, is mixed. The statin lowered heart attacks, strokes and related events by about 30% compared with a dummy pill, but it did not help people live longer free of dementia or lasting disability12.
The results were presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2026 in Munich and published at the same time in the New England Journal of Medicine31. A detailed account of the findings was published by the French science outlet Futura-Sciences on October 25, 20263.
What the trial did
Researchers recruited 9,971 people from Australian general practices. Their average age was 74.7 years, and 52% were women2. None had a history of heart or blood vessel disease, diabetes or dementia, and their blood test results were generally in normal ranges3. Their average LDL, or “bad cholesterol,” was 127 mg/dL3.
Each person was assigned by chance to take either atorvastatin, a statin sold as Lipitor in the United States, at 40 mg a day, or an identical dummy pill (placebo)31. The trial was “double-blind,” meaning neither volunteers nor researchers knew who got which pill3. People were followed for a middle value of 5.9 years2.
The trial had two main questions. One was whether the statin cut major heart and stroke events: deaths from heart or blood vessel causes, non-fatal heart attacks, strokes, and procedures to reopen blocked heart arteries. The other was whether it helped people stay alive without dementia or lasting physical disability32.
One report from the American College of Cardiology described the trial as enrolling “nearly 5,000 adults,” which does not match the 9,971 participants reported by the European Medical Journal and Futura-Sciences123. Biohack uses the larger figure, which both other sources give.
The results
On heart and stroke events, the statin group did better. A total of 297 people on atorvastatin had a major event, compared with 412 on the dummy pill31. That works out to 6.0% of the statin group versus 8.3% of the placebo group, a 30% lower relative risk that was statistically significant2. Put another way, there were 10.9 events per 1,000 person-years on the statin and 15.5 on the dummy pill3.
On the second question, there was no clear difference. Death, dementia or lasting physical disability happened in 12.8% of the statin group and 13.6% of the placebo group, a gap that was not statistically significant2. In raw numbers, that was 637 people versus 6761. The trial also found no significant improvement in overall survival3.
The study authors offered one possible reason, as quoted by the American College of Cardiology:
“Explanations for this result might include the fact that 80% of the deaths in the trial were from non-cardiovascular causes.”
In other words, preventing heart attacks and strokes may not change much of what ends or limits life for people in this age group, at least over six years1.
Side effects
Serious side effects were uncommon and equal in both groups, at 2.7% each12. However, muscle-related, liver-related and diabetes-related side effects were more common among people taking atorvastatin12. Counting all reported side effects, rates were 63% in the statin group and 58.7% in the dummy-pill group3.
What it does not show
The trial did not show that statins protect against dementia or help people live longer. But that is not the same as showing they never could. As Futura-Sciences pointed out, the trial simply did not find such benefits during its follow-up period, and the absence of a statistically significant effect is not proof that no effect exists3.
The findings also apply to a specific group: healthy, community-dwelling Australians over 70 without heart disease, diabetes or dementia2. They do not speak to people who already have heart disease, where the benefits of statins are already well established in older adults at high risk3. They also say nothing about what happens beyond about six years, or about statins other than atorvastatin.
Who is behind it
The lead researcher is Sophia Zoungas of the Monash University School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine in Melbourne1. The paper’s reference is Zoungas S et al., “Atorvastatin, cardiovascular events, and disability-free survival in older adults,” in the New England Journal of Medicine2. The sources Biohack read did not list the trial’s funders or any company ties; atorvastatin is widely available as a generic drug from several manufacturers3.
Zoungas said the findings matter as “the world’s population [is] ageing at an unprecedented rate,” and added:
“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.”
She said she hoped to see updated guidelines to help doctors use the findings1.
How it fits the field
Healthy adults over 70 have long been underrepresented in the trials that shape current treatment advice32. Prescribing statins to older people without major risk factors has remained a matter of debate3. STAREE was designed to fill that gap2.
For readers interested in longevity, the trial draws a useful line between two goals. Lowering one kind of disease risk, in this case heart attacks and strokes, is not automatically the same as adding healthy, independent years. The trial measured both and found a benefit on the first but not a clear one on the second12. The link between cholesterol drugs and brain health is still being tested in other ways: Biohack recently covered a different cholesterol pill starting a trial aimed at heading off Alzheimer’s.
What to watch next
- Whether medical bodies update their advice on statins for healthy people over 70, as the lead researcher hopes1.
- Further analyses of the trial data, for example on which people gained most, or on the side effects linked to muscles, liver and blood sugar2.
- Whether longer follow-up of the volunteers changes the picture on dementia, disability or survival, since the current results cover about six years3.
This article reports on a study and is not medical advice. Decisions about taking any medicine belong with a person and their doctor.
