That's my interpretation as well.
The full text of the study is behind a paywall, true, but that doesn't mean one can't learn something meaningful by researching other studies that cite that text.
Google
"
Finding the Balance Between Benefits and Harms When Using Statins for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Modeling Study"
And find references such as:
https://www.jwatch.org/na48090/2019/01/29/another-model-statins-primary-prevention
"
This model recommends statins less frequently than the American College of Cardiology guideline does.
There is substantial disagreement on which patients without known cardiovascular disease (CVD) should take statins. In this latest effort to address potential benefits and harms of statins for primary prevention, a Swiss team created a complex model based on data from randomized trials and observational studies. The model also incorporated competing risks for non–CV-related death and results of a survey of patients' preferences for avoiding adverse CV outcomes and statin side effects.
The 10-year predicted CVD risk above which the model predicted net benefit ranged from 14% (for men in their 40s) to 21% (for 70- to 75-year-old men), and from 17% (for women in their 40s) to 22% (for 70- to 75-year-old women)."
https://www.medpagetoday.com/cardiology/dyslipidemia/76673
"
Statins may be overprescribed for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to a modeling analysis of benefits and harm.
Statins are likely to provide net benefits at substantially higher 10-year CVD risk thresholds than the 7.5% to 10% thresholds noted by most guidelines, according to Milo A. Puhan, MD, PhD, of the University of Zurich, and colleagues.
Probability of net benefit from statin therapy decreased as age increased."
https://pace-cme.org/2018/12/17/for...its-at-higher-than-recommended-10-year-risks/
"Statins are recommended for primary prevention of CVD if 10-year risk exceeds 7.5-10.0%, often in addition to other criteria such as high cholesterol or presence of at least one specific risk factor [1-5]. None of the current guidelines, however, used a systematic assessment of the benefit-harm balance of statins [6], and it remains unclear whether the currently recommended thresholds for initiation of statin therapy are justified."
"
Editorial comment Richman and Ross note that the recommendation to use statins for primary prevention of CVD in adults with 10-year risk of at least 7.5% in the 2013 update of the ACC/AHA guidelines was particularly controversial. In the 2018 update of these guidelines, the approach was affirmed, albeit with emphasis on the importance of patient preference. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force released guidelines in 2016, in which statins for primary prevention was recommended for adults with 10-year CVD risk of at least 10%, or at lower risk thresholds (starting at 7.5%) considering individual circumstances.
Yebyo and colleagues now challenge these risk thresholds, ‘through a careful accounting of long-term risks and benefits of statins’, according to Richman and Ross. ‘The authors assigned weights to treatment outcomes so that benefits and harms could be quantified on a single scale and summed over a 10-year horizon to determine the risk threshold at which benefits outweighed harms.’ Richman and Ross express their surprise that the authors consistently found that harms outweighed benefits until 10-year CVD risk thresholds substantially exceeded those recommended in current guidelines. That raises the question whether physicians should reconsider implementing the guideline recommendations into practice. Richman and Ross consider why the estimates in this article differ from those in current guidelines. Firstly; different methodological approaches were used to estimate net benefit, with a more elaborate method used in the article. Especially taking into account competing mortality risk contributed to the decreasing probability of net benefit of statins with increasing age.
Yebyo et al. included a long list of potential adverse events, derived from an as yet unpublished network meta-analysis by the same authors, which inevitably tips the balance further away from net benefit and toward harm. Opinions may differ as to whether or not it is justified to include these harms. Richman and Ross conclude that it is the patient who has to decide on the CVD risk threshold for initiation of statin therapy. It is up to ‘physicians to fairly summarize the evidence and guide patients through the decision-making process’."
And the list goes on.
