It is one of those stupid Meta Analyses. Of the type where you pre-determine the outcome by carefully choosing the studies that you include versus those you reject.
The clue as to how flawed it is lies in the following extracted text which shows a maximum follow-up time of 43.6yrs where the median follow-up is only 13.5yrs ! Going back 43.6 yrs they would only be measuring HDL and Total Cholesterol.
Extract:
"Of the 524 444 individuals in the 44 cohorts in the Consortium database, we identified 398 846 individuals belonging to 38 cohorts (184 055 [48·7%] women; median age 51·0 years [IQR 40·7–59·7]). 199 415 individuals were included in the derivation cohort (91 786 [48·4%] women) and 199 431 (92 269 [49·1%] women) in the validation cohort. During a maximum follow-up of 43·6 years (median 13·5 years, IQR 7·0–20·1), 54 542 cardiovascular endpoints occurred."