ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Testosterone Replacement, Low T, HCG, & Beyond
Testosterone Basics & Questions
Anybody on Statin Drugs?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Blackhawk" data-source="post: 240482" data-attributes="member: 16042"><p>I am underwhelmed.</p><p></p><p>A great example of the pertinent numbers is in the Lipitor prescribing information itself. Refer to the ASCOT study numbers.</p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.drugs.com/pro/lipitor.html#s-34092-7[/URL]</p><p></p><p>10,305 patients in the study</p><p>46 events in the placebo group</p><p>40 events in the Lipitor group</p><p></p><p>or non-fatal MI</p><p>-108 events in the placebo</p><p>-60 events in the Lipitor group</p><p></p><p>Total everything up and you get</p><p></p><p>relative risk reduction of 36% [(based on incidences of 1.9% for Lipitor vs. 3.0% for placebo)</p><p></p><p>So, the number touted: 36%, is derived from 1.9% vs 3% events in the comparative groups which comparatively is a difference on 1.1 in a hundred. 1.1%</p><p></p><p>36% does not represent the actual number of patients per hundred who benefit. It is a figure that computes based on the numbers 1.9 and 3. </p><p></p><p>A little further on in the document: relative risk for revascularization procedures... 42% (incidences of 1.4% for Lipitor and 2.5% for placebo) Again a difference on 1.1 in a hundred.</p><p></p><p>So 42.5% relative risk reduction for a difference of 1.1%.</p><p></p><p>So what the heck is going on here?</p><p></p><p>"Relative risk reduction" is a deviously clever way to mis-represent raw data. Here is the equation:</p><p></p><p>Control group event rate (CER)</p><p>Experimental Event Rate (EER)</p><p></p><p>(CER-EER)/CER=RRR</p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/relative-risk-reduction-formula/[/URL]</p><p></p><p></p><p>If you keep reading further in this document, there is case after case in the study data with differences less than 2% between lipitor and placebo groups.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yet: "Diabetes was reported as an adverse reaction in 144 subjects (6.1%) in the atorvastatin group and 89 subjects (3.8%) in the placebo group"</p><p></p><p>Let's do the math</p><p>CER=3.8%</p><p>EER=6.1%</p><p>3.8-6.1=-2.3</p><p>-2.3/3.8= -.6 or -60%</p><p></p><p>This negative number means 60% relative risk INCREASE.</p><p></p><p>So you have about 36% better relative risk in terms of cardiovascular, but about 60% worse RRR for developing diabetes taking it.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I put ZERO credence in RRR. The raw data tells the real story.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Blackhawk, post: 240482, member: 16042"] I am underwhelmed. A great example of the pertinent numbers is in the Lipitor prescribing information itself. Refer to the ASCOT study numbers. [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.drugs.com/pro/lipitor.html#s-34092-7[/URL] 10,305 patients in the study 46 events in the placebo group 40 events in the Lipitor group or non-fatal MI -108 events in the placebo -60 events in the Lipitor group Total everything up and you get relative risk reduction of 36% [(based on incidences of 1.9% for Lipitor vs. 3.0% for placebo) So, the number touted: 36%, is derived from 1.9% vs 3% events in the comparative groups which comparatively is a difference on 1.1 in a hundred. 1.1% 36% does not represent the actual number of patients per hundred who benefit. It is a figure that computes based on the numbers 1.9 and 3. A little further on in the document: relative risk for revascularization procedures... 42% (incidences of 1.4% for Lipitor and 2.5% for placebo) Again a difference on 1.1 in a hundred. So 42.5% relative risk reduction for a difference of 1.1%. So what the heck is going on here? "Relative risk reduction" is a deviously clever way to mis-represent raw data. Here is the equation: Control group event rate (CER) Experimental Event Rate (EER) (CER-EER)/CER=RRR [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/relative-risk-reduction-formula/[/URL] If you keep reading further in this document, there is case after case in the study data with differences less than 2% between lipitor and placebo groups. Yet: "Diabetes was reported as an adverse reaction in 144 subjects (6.1%) in the atorvastatin group and 89 subjects (3.8%) in the placebo group" Let's do the math CER=3.8% EER=6.1% 3.8-6.1=-2.3 -2.3/3.8= -.6 or -60% This negative number means 60% relative risk INCREASE. So you have about 36% better relative risk in terms of cardiovascular, but about 60% worse RRR for developing diabetes taking it. Personally, I put ZERO credence in RRR. The raw data tells the real story. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
Testosterone Replacement, Low T, HCG, & Beyond
Testosterone Basics & Questions
Anybody on Statin Drugs?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top