Beneath is an approximation of this video’s audio content material. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, pictures, and quotes to which Dr. Greger could also be referring, watch the above video.
“Physicians have an obligation to tell their sufferers concerning the dangers and advantages of [whatever they prescribe]. Nevertheless, physicians not often talk [the absolute risk numbers], similar to numbers wanted to deal with”—in different phrases, how many individuals are literally helped by the drug; “numbers wanted to hurt”—in different phrases. how many individuals are literally damage by the drug; “or prolongation of life”—how for much longer will it allow to you to dwell—“regardless of sufferers wanting all this data.”
If medical doctors inform sufferers solely concerning the relative threat discount, for instance telling sufferers a tablet with lower their threat of coronary heart assaults by 34 p.c, 9 out of 10 comply with take it. Give them the identical data framed as absolute threat discount, although, “1.4 p.c fewer sufferers had coronary heart assaults,” and people agreeing to take the drug drops to solely 4 out of 10. And use the quantity wanted to deal with, and solely 3 in 10 sufferers would comply with take it. So, in case you’re a physician, and also you actually need the affected person to take the drug, which statistic are you going to make use of?
The usage of relative threat stats to inflate the advantages and absolute threat stats to downplay any unwanted effects has been known as “statistical deception.” To see how one would possibly spin a examine to perform this, let’s have a look at an instance. Right here’s the incidence of coronary heart assault over 5 years in these randomized to a placebo, in comparison with these getting the drug—a considerably decrease threat. Should you needed statins to sound good, you’d use the relative threat discount: 24 p.c decrease threat. Should you needed statins to sound dangerous, you’d use absolutely the threat discount, and simply say 3 p.c fewer coronary heart assaults.
Then you might flip it round for the unwanted effects. For instance, they discovered that 0.3 p.c, 1 out of the 290 ladies within the placebo group, obtained breast most cancers over these 5 years, in comparison with 4.1 p.c, 12 out of 286, within the statin group. So, a pro-statin spin on this examine could be like a 24 p.c drop in coronary heart assault threat, and solely 3.8 p.c extra breast cancers, whereas an anti-statin spin could possibly be like solely 3 p.c fewer coronary heart assaults in comparison with a 1,267 p.c increased threat of breast most cancers. Each portrayals are technically true, however you possibly can see how simply you might manipulate individuals in case you picked and selected the way you have been presenting the dangers and advantages. So ideally, you’d use each: the relative threat discount and absolute threat discount stats.
By way of advantages, once you compile a bunch of statin trials collectively, it appears to be like just like the relative threat discount is 25 p.c. So, in case your 10-year threat of a coronary heart assault or stroke is 5 p.c, then taking a statin may take that down from 5 p.c to three.75 p.c, for an absolute threat discount of 1.25 p.c, or a quantity wanted to deal with of 80, that means there’s like a 1 in 80 probability that you just’d keep away from a coronary heart assault or stroke taking the drug over the subsequent 10 years. As you possibly can see, as your baseline threat will get increased and better, regardless that you’ve gotten that very same 25 p.c threat discount, your absolute threat discount will get greater and larger. And by 20 p.c baseline threat, you’ve gotten a 1 in 20 probability of avoiding a coronary heart assault or stroke over the following decade in case you take the drug.
So these are the advantages. By way of threat, that breast most cancers discovering gave the impression to be a fluke. Put all of the research collectively, and there was no affiliation between use of statins and threat of most cancers. By way of muscle issues, estimates vary from simply 1 in 1,000 to nearer to 1 in 50.
If all these numbers are simply blurring collectively, the Mayo Clinic developed a fantastic visualization device. For these at common threat, contemplating a statin over the subsequent 10 years, of 100 individuals doing nothing, 10 might have a coronary heart assault. If all 100 took a statin day by day for these 10 years although, eight would nonetheless have a coronary heart assault, however two may have been spared, so there’s like a 1 in 50 probability taking the drug would enable you to avert a coronary heart assault over the subsequent decade.
What are the downsides? The price and inconvenience of taking a tablet day by day, which may trigger some gastrointestinal unwanted effects, muscle aching and stiffness in possibly 5 p.c, reversible liver irritation in 2 p.c, and extra severe harm in maybe 1 in 20,000 sufferers.
Now word these two pleased faces characterize coronary heart assaults averted, not lives saved. The prospect just a few years of statins will truly save your life when you have no identified coronary heart illness is about 1 in 250.
If you’d like a extra customized method, the Mayo Clinic has an interactive device that additionally enables you to calculate your 10-year threat. You will get there straight by going to bit.ly/statindecision.
Please think about volunteering to assist out on the location.
