Skip to content

    Announcements

    Attention All WebMD Community Members:

    These message boards are closed to posting. Please head on over to our new WebMD Message Boards to check out and participate in the great conversations taking place: https://messageboards.webmd.com/

    Your new WebMD Message Boards are now open!

    Making the move is as easy as 1-2-3.

    1. Head over to this page: https://messageboards.webmd.com/health-conditions/f/heart-health/

    2. Choose the tag from the drop-down menu that clicks most with you (and add it to any posts you create so others can easily find and sort through posts)

    3. Start posting

    Have questions? Email us anytime at [email protected]

    Wrong Data Published in Favor of Statins
    avatar
    surfoahu posted:
    Its unthinkable that the wrong math data could be published in favor of statins, but it happened, magnifying the drugs benefit by 10 times. This sharp Cardiologist caught the error in the Medical Journal.

    http://www.docsopinion.com/2014/05/12/statins-statistics-and-statinistics/
    Was this Helpful?
    0 of 0 found this helpful
     
    avatar
    iride6606 responded:
    Laughable, this is one doctor and his blog. He has the math wrong. For everyone that's not likely to be swayed by a headline from some doctor's personal blog, here are the right numbers;





    NNT goes down as the risk goes up. What this doctor did was select an endpoint that supported his position, he cherry picked the data he needed to get a result that would result in a headline that would get an anti statin fear monger to take hook, line and sinker.
     
    avatar
    surfoahu replied to iride6606's response:
    The Cardiologist was right, and the Medical Journal made the necessary correction.
     
    avatar
    iride6606 replied to surfoahu's response:
    Again, do you read what you post? You "headline" misleads, this guy is taking about one interpretation of one small meta-analysis based of a study of elderly statin users. What does he say about other trials?


    For example the NNT to prevent one MI in the famous 4S (SSSS) trial was 11.7 for the whole study period, but the NNT per year of the study was 63.2. The NNT for the WOSCOP trial was 44.2 for the whole study period, but 216.6 per year of the study. In fact, this all looks very reasonable and correct.


    So he agrees that NNT for Simvastatin (SSSS Trial) is 11.7 which he says is reasonable and correct.
     
    avatar
    iride6606 replied to surfoahu's response:
    Again, do you read what you post? You "headline" misleads, this guy is taking about one interpretation of one small meta-analysis based of a study of elderly statin users. What does he say about other trials:


    For example the NNT to prevent one MI in the famous 4S (SSSS) trial was 11.7 for the whole study period, but the NNT per year of the study was 63.2. The NNT for the WOSCOP trial was 44.2 for the whole study period, but 216.6 per year of the study. In fact, this all looks very reasonable and correct.


    So he agrees that NNT for Simvastatin (SSSS Trial) is 11.7 which he says is reasonable and correct.


    Featuring Experts

    There are no Expert stories for this community right now

    Helpful Tips

    Statin wars: Doctors are bitterly divided over calls for half of all adults to be put on pills to cut cholesterol.
    This was published one year ago. Very good. Notice the comments at the end of the article. Public attitude towards statins is changing. ... More
    Was this Helpful?
    0 of 1 found this helpful

    Related Drug Reviews

    • Drug Name User Reviews

    Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

    FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.