Comments on: Who Needs Those Cholesterol Pills, Anyway? http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/ News, Comment and Conversation Sun, 06 Jul 2008 00:09:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Mark’s Daily Apple » Blog Archive » The Definitive Guide to Cholesterol http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-122905 Mark’s Daily Apple » Blog Archive » The Definitive Guide to Cholesterol Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:45:12 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-122905 [...] PharmaLot: Who Needs Those Cholesterol Pills Anyway? [...] [...] PharmaLot: Who Needs Those Cholesterol Pills Anyway? [...]

]]> By: Statins - who needs them and why? | Biotech Stocks Blog http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-122612 Statins - who needs them and why? | Biotech Stocks Blog Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:06:08 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-122612 [...] and that 249 would have no benefit? And that they could do just as well by exercising?” asks Jerome Hoffman, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California at Los [...] [...] and that 249 would have no benefit? And that they could do just as well by exercising?” asks Jerome Hoffman, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California at Los [...]

]]> By: a drug developer http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-108494 a drug developer Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:08:49 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-108494 and the cv reduction is 36% in the data. and the cv reduction is 36% in the data.

]]> By: a drug developer http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-108491 a drug developer Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:06:42 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-108491 yes Nathan I have been stewing over that 50% vs 33% reduction since you (and I) wrote it. I think that MKM is right but the conclusion is still the same that the drugs are cheaper $49,500 vs $36,500. and if you go to the clinical data at https://www.pfizerpro.com/product_info/lipitor_pi_clinical_studies.jsp some studies are even better. ie stoke reduction of 48%. as several people have mentioned there are several reasons to prescribe beyond just CV. yes Nathan I have been stewing over that 50% vs 33% reduction since you (and I) wrote it. I think that MKM is right but the conclusion is still the same that the drugs are cheaper $49,500 vs $36,500.

and if you go to the clinical data at

https://www.pfizerpro.com/product_info/lipitor_pi_clinical_studies.jsp

some studies are even better. ie stoke reduction of 48%. as several people have mentioned there are several reasons to prescribe beyond just CV.

]]> By: MKM http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-108108 MKM Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:35:57 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-108108 3% to 2% is a 33% risk reduction, not a 50% risk reduction. 3% to 2% is a 33% risk reduction, not a 50% risk reduction.

]]> By: DR. Remulac http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-107878 DR. Remulac Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:25:21 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-107878 Clearly, no one is saying that patients who are at high risk of a heart attack and have elevated LDL-C shouldn't be treated with an appropriate LDL-C lowering drug. That's not the issue. The issue is this: NCEP, ADA, AHA, and other major medical societies have declared that high-risk patients have a a goal LDL-C of Clearly, no one is saying that patients who are at high risk of a heart attack and have elevated LDL-C shouldn’t be treated with an appropriate LDL-C lowering drug. That’s not the issue. The issue is this: NCEP, ADA, AHA, and other major medical societies have declared that high-risk patients have a a goal LDL-C of

]]> By: Bob Freeman http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-107746 Bob Freeman Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:23:04 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-107746 Drug developer, the calculation looks good to me, but there's no reason for you to not include the original case (the base case, if you will)also and then present the new case as a sensitivity analysis. there are other scenarios that could be created but you don't have to go any farther. Nice job, by the way. One of the problems presenting CEAs is that people will nit pick you to death over numbers. Just state your assumptions and be transparent. Drug developer, the calculation looks good to me, but there’s no reason for you to not include the original case (the base case, if you will)also and then present the new case as a sensitivity analysis. there are other scenarios that could be created but you don’t have to go any farther.

Nice job, by the way.

One of the problems presenting CEAs is that people will nit pick you to death over numbers. Just state your assumptions and be transparent.

]]> By: Joseph http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-107488 Joseph Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:21:50 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-107488 How about taking something 100% natural to lower cholesterol and promote overall good health??? I believe Kevin Trudeau!!! NATURE is where health is found:) NOT YOUR FUKKING PILLS!!!! How about taking something 100% natural to lower cholesterol and promote overall good health???
I believe Kevin Trudeau!!!
NATURE is where health is found:)
NOT YOUR FUKKING PILLS!!!!

]]> By: a drug developer http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-106817 a drug developer Mon, 21 Jan 2008 01:22:35 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-106817 ok let me refine my math a little than on the c/b. Instead of saying that statins save 600,000 lives per year how about that there is still a 50% reduction in heart attacks of a group X (x being a group who have risk of heart attack every year from high cholesterol) untreated and having heart attacks that costs x/2 * 5 years * $30,000/cv = $75,000x The drugs cost x * 20 * 5 years * 365 = $36,500x still half the price of not treating. I appreciate your evaluating this as I want to make an accurate presentation. ok let me refine my math a little than on the c/b. Instead of saying that statins save 600,000 lives per year how about that there is still a 50% reduction in heart attacks of a group X (x being a group who have risk of heart attack every year from high cholesterol)

untreated and having heart attacks that costs x/2 * 5 years * $30,000/cv = $75,000x

The drugs cost x * 20 * 5 years * 365 = $36,500x

still half the price of not treating. I appreciate your evaluating this as I want to make an accurate presentation.

]]> By: Bob Freeman http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-106713 Bob Freeman Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:42:33 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/01/who-needs-those-cholesterol-pills-anyway/#comment-106713 Drug Developer et al., I wasn't arguing for restricting prescribing to groups at high risk, only pointing out that sub-group CEAs tend to have higher CEA outcomes. Nathan's point on high cholesterol being the only determinant of either fatal or non-fatal events is very appropriate. The effects of other causes and confounding variables has to be recognized. Drug Developer et al., I wasn’t arguing for restricting prescribing to groups at high risk, only pointing out that sub-group CEAs tend to have higher CEA outcomes.

Nathan’s point on high cholesterol being the only determinant of either fatal or non-fatal events is very appropriate. The effects of other causes and confounding variables has to be recognized.

]]>