Meta-analysis = spawn of the devil.
This is at least the fifth such met-analysis each one taking a slightly different tack each attacking the others methodology.
The fundamental problem is that these are 4 year trials, designed to test the impact of lipid lowering on cardiovascular events - since we know that changing lipid levels impacts cardiovascular events in that timeframe. There is scant evidence to suggest that in such a short time frame this converts to mortality benefit. Unfortunately from secondary prevention trials we know that where the cardiovascular event rate is high this does impact mortality so it is assumed that a similar approach can be applied to primary prevention. Those who pay for primary prevention want proof that it saves lives not just reduces morbidity, hence this kind of data trawling is encouraged, with over-reaction to any positive or negative meta-analysis, depending only on which side of the fence you sit.