Very clear and informative Dr. Bhatt, and also answering those issues that appear to rearing their ugly heads on the Boards right now, espc re the Mineral oil/Placebo mini controversy. You laid it all out there for me, and I am very thankful for that peace of mind.
Excellent trial and interview. However, I'd like to note that using the word "trend" (watch 6:24 and 7:41) to describe "almost" but not quite statistically significant differences (eg, P=0.09) is an error. The outcome of an inferential test is either rejection of the null hypothesis, or failure to reject the null hypothesis. There is no other outcome. Describing some "almost significant" P-values as a trend but not others introduces a large element of subjectivity. Does a P-value of 0.04 suggest a trend towards non-significance? What range of P values are considered "almost significant"? To be consistent, either all P values within this hypothetical range suggest or support a trend or none. For those who want to read more about this, Gibbs and Gibbs offer a fascinating insight into the misuse of "trend" (doi:10.1093/bja/aev149).
It has previously been proven that fish oil has no effect in reducing CVD mortality. But no, they want your money and are willing to do anything for it.
This isn't fish oil, it's an ethyl ester of EPA. Also, this study focuses on a small specific patient group (those on statins with low LDL but also hypertriglyceridemia). That patient group hasn't been tested before.
"Evaluation of the Effect of AMR101 on Cardiovascular Health and Mortality in Hypertriglyceridemic Patients With Cardiovascular Disease or at High Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With EPA - Intervention Trial)" "The purpose of this study is To evaluate whether icosapent ethyl + statin is superior to statin therapy alone to prevent/reduce long-term CV events in high-risk mixed dyslipidemia patients." Key Findings "High-dose icosapent ethyl vs. placebo in at-risk patients significantly reduced the composite CVD endpoint: risk of CV death, MI, stroke, coronary revascularization, and unstable angina." professional.heart.org/professional/ScienceNews/UCM_502877_REDUCE-IT-Clinical-Trial-Details.jsp
Great explanation, great results, great drug. Congratulations!!
Very clear and informative Dr. Bhatt, and also answering those issues that appear to rearing their ugly heads on the Boards right now, espc re the Mineral oil/Placebo mini controversy. You laid it all out there for me, and I am very thankful for that peace of mind.
Thank you Dr. Deepak Bhatt.
Excellent 8000 patient trial published in the highly exacting New England Journal of Medicine. Very exciting.
Excellent trial and interview. However, I'd like to note that using the word "trend" (watch 6:24 and 7:41) to describe "almost" but not quite statistically significant differences (eg, P=0.09) is an error. The outcome of an inferential test is either rejection of the null hypothesis, or failure to reject the null hypothesis. There is no other outcome. Describing some "almost significant" P-values as a trend but not others introduces a large element of subjectivity. Does a P-value of 0.04 suggest a trend towards non-significance? What range of P values are considered "almost significant"? To be consistent, either all P values within this hypothetical range suggest or support a trend or none. For those who want to read more about this, Gibbs and Gibbs offer a fascinating insight into the misuse of "trend" (doi:10.1093/bja/aev149).
Excellent review of the article
In September 2022. The stock price of Amarin has plummeted to 1.20 $ only down from 25 $. Thanks to the bad placebo and the bad patent.
Hopefully it’s affordable. Thank you for your dedication and thank you NEJM for this youtube channel
I sell it. You can get it as low as $9 a month.
Poseidon78 - Not if you’re on Medicare part D. My plan costs $75 a month. That’s high if you’re on a fixed income.
Just invested in Vascepa and bought AMRN stock
V saves Lives...
Superb
It has previously been proven that fish oil has no effect in reducing CVD mortality. But no, they want your money and are willing to do anything for it.
Do your research. Its nothing like regular Fish oil. Its highly refined EPA.
This isn't fish oil, it's an ethyl ester of EPA. Also, this study focuses on a small specific patient group (those on statins with low LDL but also hypertriglyceridemia). That patient group hasn't been tested before.
"Evaluation of the Effect of AMR101 on Cardiovascular Health and Mortality in Hypertriglyceridemic Patients With Cardiovascular Disease or at High Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With EPA - Intervention Trial)"
"The purpose of this study is To evaluate whether icosapent ethyl + statin is superior to statin therapy alone to prevent/reduce long-term CV events in high-risk mixed dyslipidemia patients."
Key Findings
"High-dose icosapent ethyl vs. placebo in at-risk patients significantly reduced the composite CVD endpoint: risk of CV death, MI, stroke, coronary revascularization, and unstable angina."
professional.heart.org/professional/ScienceNews/UCM_502877_REDUCE-IT-Clinical-Trial-Details.jsp