Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Panel endorses BMJ refusal to retract statins articles

An independent panel has backed the BMJ’s decision not to withdraw two articles about statins, after the journal admitted both contained erroneous statements regarding the drugs’ side effects.

The panel was convened by the journal to review whether it was right to only withdraw the inaccurate statements rather than the full articles, following calls from a leading academic to retract them altogether.

After a two-month review, the panel, led by former RCGP president Dr Iona Heath, said its members were ‘unanimous in their decision that the two papers do not meet any of the criteria for retraction’.

The articles in question were a debate piece by North American academics, led by Harvard Professor John Abramson, and an opinion piece by London cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, both of which questioned the value of extending statin use to healthy people at low risk of cardiovascular disease.

Professor Rory Collins, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Oxford University, had called for both articles to be retracted because they had incorrectly interpreted a previous study in stating the rate of side effects of statins is around 20%.

The BMJ withdrew the erroneous statements but refused to retract the articles. However, despite standing by the original conclusions that there is no mortality benefit from statin treatment in people at less than a 20% 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease, journal editor Dr Fiona Godlee set up an independent panel to look at how it had dealt with the issue.

The panel, chaired by Dr Heath and including six internationally renowned experts, concluded the journal had handled the two articles appropriately and that its processes were timely and reasonable.

BMJ editor Dr Fiona Godlee said: ‘The independent panel has unanimously endorsed our handling of this matter. We are grateful to the panel for their hard work in helping to maintain the journal’s scientific integrity.’

The debate over the papers came amid controversy over NICE’s decision to halve the primary prevention threshold for statin use, from a 10-year risk of 20% to 10% - potentially putting millions more healthy people in the UK on statins.

Professor Collins, lead author of a major review on which the NICE decision was partly based, had already provoked controversy by accusing opponents of the 10% primary prevention threshold of misleading the public in a similar way to doctors who raised fears about the MMR vaccine.

Professor Collins recently told the Guardian he had ‘no confidence’ in the BMJ’s independent review and called for the Government to intervene.

Related images

  • Simvastatin - Statin - Cardiovascular - Online


Readers' comments (7)

  • Nice should change the hypertension guideline then , as the basis for statin is that they prevent more deaths at 10 percent risk, then treating hypertension with bp medications. Perhaps we should treat hypertension based on risk scores rather then bp targets.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Yes. Interesting .
    If I remember correctly , in current NICE guidance on hypertension , stage 1 hypertension ( average ABPM or HBPM readings > 135/85 but 20%, life style changes if <20%.
    So if this 20% is also to be changed to 10%, more mild to moderate hypertensives will have to go onto antihypertensives ??

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 'Independent panel'?!! conveyed by the Editor of BMJ herself and headed by her handpicked colleague and ex member of BMJ ethics cttee. A cttee which failed to publish open reports during her term on the ethics cttee as had been the policy previously.....and who who published many articles as her 'personal view' in the BMJ whilst president of the RCGPs. All a bit too cosy - an independent review needs to be seen to be independent as the Schloss fiasco showed recently ie she was appointed to head an investigation into child abuse when her own brother had been highly criticised for his involvement in a bungled review years ago. Lessons learned?.not yet - the boys and girls networks are still strong

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It was really silly to seek retraction of an opinion article!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • NICE look at health -economy, and the cost of treatment. Do they also look at resources needed to put their guidelines into action? -surely shd be linked. How many hours of primary care input would these recent suggestions need to put into place? A bit like finance, what are they suggesting we should 'disinvest' our time from?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Professor Collins has asked the Government to intervene. Scary!!!! No longer can a Journal get on with its legitimate business of reporting, giving opinions and stirring up healthy controversy - the knee-jerk reaction is to get the Govt. to bully and suppress anyone who dares to differ from received wisdom. Do you remember the time (under Gordon Brown) when a Govt. minister said that anyone who didn't follow NICE guidelines should be sent to prison? What was remarkable there was the lack of outcry about the comments. We need to debate the LIMITS of government involvement and stand up to bossy government as appropriate, not call them in to back up our more Soviet propensities.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Collins is requesting a properly independent panel investigates the matter....see actual BMJ article

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say