Rough RRR Comparison for Mace: No Spin ZoneHere is my rough comparison of RRR (reletive risk reduction) of MACE between RVX-208 and the PSCK9 inhibitors.
Beware: I hate math and am not a scientist. Thus, someone with that background should check this out and comment upon it. If I am off base, please let us all know!
In the following website, the PSCK9 inhibitor reported a 47% RRR of MACE I think:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ACC/50488
Here is the relevant quote from that website:
That translated to a hazard ratio of 0.47 (95% CI 0.28-0.78) in favor of the anti-PCSK9 monoclonal antibody for the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina, coronary revascularization, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or heart failure.
OK, so doesn't that say that their MACE reduction was 47%???
Don reported in his February presentation that ACROSS ALL PATIENTS the RRR of RVX-208 was 55%? Right? Plus it was a whopping 77% for diabetes patients. Right?
Plus, it looks to me that both studies define MACE the same way, or at least similarly....
Someone correct me if I am wrong here...
So I think 55% looks pretty good compared with 47%. Plus, you don't have to get shot up with a needle for our drug. Nor do you have to worry about it worsening cognitive decline.
There's a lot of spin going on right now about the PSCK9 inhibitors. They apparently are valued in the multiple billions of dollars. Wow....
Doesn't our drug look like a bargain by comparison???
I think so.
Please correct my analysis if you think I am off base. My goal here is accurate information so I would welcome that.
DYODD. GLTA. IMHO.