THANK YOU for this! This is so helpful and really puts things in perspective that their press releases and the media just won't tell us.
Also the NNT of 67 for Wegovy is REALLY concerning, considering how hard these meds are being pushed, all the side effects, and the very narrow study group demographics. This is scary shit.
Thank you as always for your hard work and expertise.
Ragen, thank you so much! Wow. 67 ?! That's terrible.
When the provider prescribes something, I assume it will protect ME, or at least I'm given that impression by the provider. But it turns out, in the case of this drug, slim chances it will!
Great to know. I'm going to put this in my wallet and ask my providers for this number each time. I wonder if they know, or if the pharmacist does. Thanks again!
Great article. I’m going to google this but I wonder if you have an opinion on what a “good” NNT is? It would be helpful to have that cutoff. Like when p < .05. Do you know the NNT for metformin for diabetes or statins for cholesterol?
I don't think that there's just one answer to this. As you mentioned, some medications target "risk factors" and often it's not clear the final impact they have on the target outcomes. It also depends on the severity of the condition and the number of people who have it. If a condition is severe and/or many, many people have it, than a higher NNT might still be considered "good." If a condition is mild and/or very few people have it, than that same NNT might be considered "bad."
Did a little searching. Mental health meds seem to have pretty high NNTs! But they directly treat the condition. Not like statins that “treat” cholesterol levels but the target outcomes are really heart disease, stroke, CV events. And IWL NNTs have to be terrible if they can be calculated. This is fascinating.
THANK YOU for this! This is so helpful and really puts things in perspective that their press releases and the media just won't tell us.
Also the NNT of 67 for Wegovy is REALLY concerning, considering how hard these meds are being pushed, all the side effects, and the very narrow study group demographics. This is scary shit.
Thank you as always for your hard work and expertise.
I agree,Jen.
Ragen, thank you so much! Wow. 67 ?! That's terrible.
When the provider prescribes something, I assume it will protect ME, or at least I'm given that impression by the provider. But it turns out, in the case of this drug, slim chances it will!
Great to know. I'm going to put this in my wallet and ask my providers for this number each time. I wonder if they know, or if the pharmacist does. Thanks again!
Great article. I’m going to google this but I wonder if you have an opinion on what a “good” NNT is? It would be helpful to have that cutoff. Like when p < .05. Do you know the NNT for metformin for diabetes or statins for cholesterol?
I don't think that there's just one answer to this. As you mentioned, some medications target "risk factors" and often it's not clear the final impact they have on the target outcomes. It also depends on the severity of the condition and the number of people who have it. If a condition is severe and/or many, many people have it, than a higher NNT might still be considered "good." If a condition is mild and/or very few people have it, than that same NNT might be considered "bad."
Did a little searching. Mental health meds seem to have pretty high NNTs! But they directly treat the condition. Not like statins that “treat” cholesterol levels but the target outcomes are really heart disease, stroke, CV events. And IWL NNTs have to be terrible if they can be calculated. This is fascinating.