Heard the latest news about Lipitor?

[Guest guest]

So how did Pfizer pull this one off? According to "...an observational study of a large U.S. managed care claims database showed that new statin users without cardiovascular disease who took Lipitor® (atorvastatin calcium) Tablets had a significantly lower relative risk of experiencing any cardiovascular event, a heart attack, or revascularization (a type of heart surgery) compared to patients who took simvastatin. "Patients taking Lipitor had a significant 12 percent lower relative risk of experiencing a cardiovascular event. In a secondary analysis, patients taking Lipitor had a significant 15 percent lower relative risk of experiencing a heart attack, and a significant 12 percent lower relative risk of revascularization compared to patients taking simvastatin." (Emphasis mine. Go here to read the entire report: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/94055.php )

Does this make sense or is it just me? First of all, don't they admit to there being only a 2% reduction in deaths in men within a certain age range, and 0% for women of all ages, who are on Lipitor? So how does one reconcile that with this report? Unless they mean that Lipitor prevents cardiovascular events without decreasing deaths? I think there's somethin' very fishy going on here! Or as Disraeli so aptly put it, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

[Guest guest]

:

You are comparing apples and oranges. The 12% claim is the Relative

Risk Reduction and the 2% percent you are familiar with is the Actual

Risk Reduction.

Here is and example:

Product Z has a 4% Actual event rate.

Product L has a 2% Actual event rate.

This would be claimed that Product L has a 50% Relative Risk

Reduction and the number used by the marketing types. Another way of

expressing the results would be that product Z has 100% higher rate.

Relative Risk Numbers are meaningless unless you know the reference

point. Most people are impressed by the rosy numbers touted by the

docs, the problem is that they believe them also. Numbers don't lie

but can lie with numbers.

Hope this helps

Gayle

>

>

> So how did Pfizer pull this one off? According to " ...an

observational

> study of a large U.S. managed care claims database showed that new

> statin users without cardiovascular disease who took Lipitor®

> (atorvastatin calcium) Tablets had a significantly lower relative

risk

> of experiencing any cardiovascular event, a heart attack, or

> revascularization (a type of heart surgery) compared to patients who

> took simvastatin.

>

> " Patients taking Lipitor had a significant 12 percent lower relative

> risk of experiencing a cardiovascular event. In a secondary

analysis,

> patients taking Lipitor had a significant 15 percent lower relative

risk

> of experiencing a heart attack, and a significant 12 percent lower

> relative risk of revascularization compared to patients taking

> simvastatin. " (Emphasis mine. Go here to read the entire report:

> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/94055.php

> <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/94055.php> )

>

> Does this make sense or is it just me? First of all, don't they

admit to

> there being only a 2% reduction in deaths in men within a certain

age

> range, and 0% for women of all ages, who are on Lipitor? So how

does one

> reconcile that with this report? Unless they mean that Lipitor

prevents

> cardiovascular events without decreasing deaths? I think there's

> somethin' very fishy going on here! Or as Disraeli so aptly put it,

> " There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. "

>