Remember the moving-your-tablets-to-the-night had magical 40% reduction in non-CV death?
Following a complaint to my institution I won't be commenting on that trial any more, pending its formal investigation.
Someone's taunting me into more trouble...
That's the curious thing about glifloziglozoflins. We don't properly understand how they work. They were never intended to be a HF med in the first place. They were for urinating out glucose.
And they are an actual drug, not just rearranging your existing drugs around the clock
But I won't harass DAPA-HF, for two reasons.
They do have the result you mention, roughly the same hazard ratio for CV death and all deaths:
Reason 1 I won't harass them.
In HF, most of the deaths are cardiovascular, because it is a very mortal condition - unlike another condition which for now I won't be mentioning. Suffice it to say the characters may be ORYIEHPSNTN.
Therefore you can calculate the number of non-cardiovascular deaths in each arm.
Non CV deaths in dapaglzinfoliznaplzn arm?
Non CV deaths in placebo arm?
Calculate the difference. No calculators allowed. (I am watching.)
And that is what proportion of the placebo arm non-CV deaths?
So the hazard ratio is ROUGHLY* what?
(* = yes I know this is a cheeky shorthand way to estimate it and it is not really correct, but it is close enough)
Yeh, well that's the kind of deviation from 1.0 that can easily happen by chance with that total number of non-CV deaths.
Obviously we should test it properly via the hazard ratio, but by eye you can see it is within the play of chance.
That's the first (and minor) reason I am not harassing the DAPA-HF people.
The far more important reason is shown here.
John McMurray.
If you mess with him, you don't get a lawyer's letter.
You get a knock on the door.
So DAPA-HF - fine by me!
What the hell is the matter with you people.
You clearly know how how to subtract (virtually everyone got the first two questions right).
But division, seems to be beyond you.
I go to the shop, to buy a toilet roll.
"That will be $56 please," says the shopkeeper.
"?"
"Well, the second wave is coming, so ... supply and demand, y'know."
Luckily I think quickly.
I had placed the toilet roll on one end of the counter.
All I needed to do was roll the toilet paper to the other end of the counter, like this.
"Errrr... what's the point of that?" the shopkeeper asks.
"Well, you know how you can rearrange BP tablets to almost bring cancer to a halt, yeh?"
"Oh yes, we all do that, down our way. Been doing it for ages. No cancer for centuries in our town. I am 145 years old, myself. I call my wife a childsnatcher, because she is 237."
"Good! So you understand the principle. I'm just doing it in space, rather than time. Roll the toilet roll from one end of the counter to the other, and it is a completely different financial effect."
"Ummm.... OK. Well I can't argue with you can I?"
"No, you have to wait for the enquiry. For now you have to take it as true. If you want to argue, you have to go to court."
"All right then, how about $49, just to get you out of my shop?"
"Sold!"
I have had $7 chopped off a $56 toilet roll.
What fraction of the original cost has he removed?
Is that
If you are super clever you might know exactly what percentage it is, but the above question should be easy to get right.
OK, so what percentage reduction is that 1/8 reduction?
By the way, useful facts to know:
1/8 = 12.5% (because you already know that 1/4 = 25%)
And
1/12 = 8 and a bit percent. Notice the 8 & 12 are the other way round.
Behind all of these excitement, is the fact that 12 * 8 = 96, i.e. almost 100
So if you have had 12.5% chopped off your price, or your non-CV death rate, how many % have you got left? (you started with 100%).
First five votes are getting the 1/8 correct, now, which is great to see.
Let's have no more of this humiliation please!
(Otherwise I will phone up your government and tell them that I've written a paper showing Covid gives everyone heart cancer, quickly lock down)
The pandemic has made it really clear to me that trend to have patients make their own health care decisions with advice from us, is well intentioned but harmful.
A great many people *don't realise* they have no idea how to decide wisely.
This unfortunate citizen thinks that this graph is what they should use to decide whether to have a vaccine.
the doctor has a choice of explaining about RCTs versus irrelevant 3d colour graphs, telescoping into a few minutes what it took years to grasp, or just sigh and move on.
When I get on a plane, I have paid for a pilot to have spent a very long time studying how best to fly a plane.
Even if I prefer him to fly lower so I "get less x-rays", or over the land "so I don't have a risk of drowning", I don't barge in and tweak the steering wheel myself.