We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
evolocumab increased the risk of all cause mortality in the Fier trial the main results article presented mortality s censored that's a big word today in 2020 censored at the medium followup of 22.2 the median followup of 2.2 excuse me years and this was used in previous reviews clinical trials.gov provided mortality for the full length of followup of all patients at 3.4 years and as I said earlier at 3.4 years the results look very very differently
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
if you actually look at the Fier trial and they talk about this in the paper you guys if you look at the Fier trial and you look on clinical trials.gov they're only showing you the first 2.2 years the trial actually went 3.4 years and if you go out to the data at 3.4 years which I'm going to show you here thought I had it highlighted um if you go out to the data for 3.5 years or 3.4 years what you will find is that it was a very different story that it did not have any benefit for M myocardial infarction or stroke and it increased
if you go out to the data for 3.5 years or 3.4 years what you will find is that it was a very different story that it did not have any benefit for M myocardial infarction or stroke and it increased the risk of all cause mortality