Treated rate of heart attack over the five years was brought down to 9%! That would be considered a very good response.

The report in The American Journal of Medicine would read: "Treatment with this new drug caused a 47% fall (17% → 9%) in risk of heart attack over 5 years." That would make the evening news, and the drug company's stock price would likely rise a good bit. A near 50% beneficial effect is a home run in the drug industry.

Now this was a made up study, but you can find those kinds of results in medical journals every single month. Usually not nearly that good though. As I said, 47% reduction in risk is a home run.



I'm going to tell you something now that few doctors and fewer still patients know about drug studies and how they should be interpreted.

If only 17 out of 100 patients taking the placebo had a heart attack, that means that the other 83 patients would not have benefited at all, even had they been taking active medication. So 83% of patients were not going to get heart problems during those 5 years no matter what they did. And since 9 out of 100 patients taking active medication had a heart attack anyway, those 9 certainly weren't benefited either.

So, add it up: 9 + 83 = 92 patients that did not benefit and only 8 out of 100 were actually benefited by taking this new drug over a five year period. Cost and side effects for the 92%, but no measurable benefit.

Bottom line: the drug caused a 47% reduction in risk of, but only an 8% fall in the rate of heart attacks. Do you see the difference? Risk is all theory, a heart attack may or may not happen to you. Rate is real. Rate is: call an ambulance.