View Single Post
Old 10-01-2006, 02:26 PM
BBS1951 BBS1951 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 474
15 yr Member
BBS1951 BBS1951 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 474
15 yr Member
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
I see the point you are making, but for any drug that someone takes for a long time for MS, the relative reduction seems relevant. A 33% reduction in relapses means two relapses in three years instead of three relapses in three years...that is if we make the possibly quite incorrect assumption that the drugs have approximately the same effect on everyone who takes it.
Yes.

But, if, using your example, its Three relapses in 3 years on placebo , and two relapses in 3 years on Tysabri, but you as a patient only have been getting 1 relapse every other year, it makes the risks look possibly less worth the benefit.

Or, it ist 3 relapses on placebo in 3 years, 2 relapses on Tysabri in 3 years, and 2 relapses on Copax and Rebif in 2.8 years, now what risks does the patient want to make in light of benefit.

I should add I do not know the # of relapses per year, I'm just building on y our example.

xo++ seems to know this stuff off the top of his head and might be able to fill in the blanks better.

The point being is that percentages do not give us a good picture of benefit when we weigh it against risk.
BBS1951 is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote