|
|
|
|
|
by rgbgraph
1116 days ago
|
|
Then we are at an uncrossable philosophical chasm. I don’t consider 2% ARR huge — especially when the risks of side-effects have been down-played. We can argue about this all we want, but it’s no longer a matter of fact, but of opinion and values. |
|
I’ll use your 2% ARR for death although there are better numbers in different patient populations.
In other words: Statins will save 1 life for every 50 patients treated and prevent 1 in ~20-40 non-fatal cardiac events, a medically significant result period. The NNH is > 100, and the harm is a self-limiting myopathy (and a possible risk of accelerated diabetes-onset in observational studies, that is still outweighed by the reduction in all-cause mortality and MACE).
The evidence is unequivocal that the benefits far outweigh the harms.
Separately, you have a personal choice to take/not take any treatment, and you may personally feel treating 50 people to save 1 life is not worth it for you, because you subjectively feel the numbers don’t fit your personal risk/benefit model. This is where you are saying 2% ARR is insignificant to you but this says nothing about the evidence or rationale behind the treatment.
> risks of side-effects have been down-played.
Except every study looking at side-effects has shown they were overstated in the initial trial.
“The most severe complication of SI is discontinuation of effective cholesterol-lowering treatment in patients who, by virtue of their CVD risk and cholesterol level, might otherwise benefit.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00219...