There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that statins save and extend lives.
I am underwhelmed.
A great example of the pertinent numbers is in the Lipitor prescribing information itself. Refer to the ASCOT study numbers.
Lipitor package insert / prescribing information for healthcare professionals. Includes: indications, dosage, adverse reactions and pharmacology.
www.drugs.com
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
Formula to Calculate Relative Risk Reduction Relative risk reduction is a relative reduction in the overall business risks due to adverse circumstances of
www.wallstreetmojo.com
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.