I can't remember enough about statistical significance to be sure about the figures but the conclusion says:
Conclusion: In contrast to previous observational studies, this randomised controlled trial has shown that, despite reducing systemic inflammation and halving serum low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations, statin treatment does not have a major effect on the rate of progression of coronary artery calcification.
It appears statins don't make any difference to calcification, to say it makes it worse is a bit of a stretch.
Although it is an RCT, The test method does not give any indication of how long the groups were exposed to the test conditions. Since the aetiology of calcification is generally a long term process, then duration will be a prime requirement to be controlled and will have significant effect on the outcome. All the participants were chosen because they already had calcification, so again this distorts the analysis.
I am drawn to the Conflicts of Interest declaration in that RCT where Pfizer was funding the study and the staff making the decisions. The Key Issues at the end of the review is also worth taking into account.
These two commentaries show that this is a review of a previous study, and there seems to be no date mentioned for when the RCT was actually conducted. The 2015 date refers to when the Review took place and not when the RCT took place If it was before 2005 then it is highly suspect since many trials performed before 2004 used very dubious statistical methods and were open to misrepresentation, as discussed in Key Issues. The standards for medical studies were tightened in 2005 to clean up the actions of certain pharma companies. Most statin trials took place before 2004 and are considered to be open to self interest.