Some other things of interest to me on reading the paper were:
The difference in organ failure free days was approx. 1/14 - not sure that's clinically relevant.
The inclusion criteria were pretty broad with not too exclusive exclusion criteria, so I was surprised only 10% of those screened were enrolled. I also couldn't fathom why in over 10% 'unable to give consent' was the reason for non-enrolment - I've checked the protocol and assent could be used. Refusal is categorised separately - I must be missing something...
I'm not convinced by the conclusion that stopping a statin is safe, not with those confidence intervals - that question could possibly have been answered however if the study wasn't stopped early.
The patients were ventilated in an impressive manner (how to best ventilate patients with ARDS was discovered by the ARDSnet group themselves).
The patients on statins were (unsurprisingly) 'heavier' - this may explain why previous studies have shown a survival benefit for those taking statins. The relationship between obesity and survival has been looked into in various populations (with mixed results), the so-called 'obesity paradox'. You can read more about that here.
The plasma level was low, despite a reasonable dose - I must admit I didn't look in the protocol for a dose finding study.
So what does this mean? For me, I will not stop a patient's statin, but I won't be starting everyone on one either. Do you agree? Do you think the trial should've been stopped?
I look forwwward to reading your comments - no such thing as a stupid one.......