Historical Review of the Use of Relative Risk Statistics in the Portrayal of the Purported Hazards of High LDL Cholesterol and the Benefits of Lipid-Lowering Therapy.

Abstract

The manner in which clinical trial investigators present their findings to healthcare providers and the public can have a substantial influence on their impact. For example, if a heart attack occurs in 2% of those in the placebo group and in 1% of those in the drug-treated group, the benefit to the treated population is only one percentage point better than no treatment. This finding is unlikely to generate much enthusiasm from the study sponsors and in the reporting of the findings to the public. Instead, trial directors can amplify the magnitude of the appearance of the treatment benefit by using the relative risk (RR) value of a 50% reduction of the risk of a heart attack, since one is 50% of two. By using the RR type of data analysis, clinical trial directors can promote the outcome of their trial in their publication and to the media as highly successfulwhile minimizing or disregarding entirelythe absolute risk (AR) reduction of only one percentage point. The practice of expressing the RR without the AR has become routinely deployed in the reporting of findings in many different areas of clinical research. We have provided a historical perspective on how this form of data presentation has become commonplace in the reporting of findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on coronary heart disease (CHD) event monitoring and prevention over the past four decades. We assert that the emphasis on RR coupled with insufficient disclosure of AR in the reporting of RCT outcomes has led healthcare providers and the public to overestimate concerns about high cholesterol and to be misled as to the magnitude of the benefits of cholesterol-lowering therapy. The goal of this review is to prompt the scientific community to address this misleading approach to data presentation.