5 ms·
It's really frustrating because both papers clearly lays out the numbers in natural frequencies: > During 1,915,120 person-years of observation, 218 persons de
by operator-name 2y ago
It's really frustrating because both papers clearly lays out the numbers in natural frequencies:
> During 1,915,120 person-years of observation, 218 persons developed NAION. Semaglutide
51 exposure associated with a higher incidence rate (0·228 vs 0·093 per 1000 person-years, p<0·001)
52 and independently predicted a higher risk of upcoming NAION (HR 2·19, 95% confidence interval
53 1·54-3·12), even when multiple other factors were taken into account.
> In this cohort study conducted in Denmark and Norway, use of semaglutide was associated with an increased risk of NAION; the pooled hazard ratio was 2.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 4.75) and the incidence rate difference (absolute risk increase) was +1.41 (95% CI +0.53 to +2.29) NAION events per 10,000 person-years. The finding was consistent across sensitivity and supplementary analysis.
- operator-name 2y agoAh, hidden right at the end inside the "about the studies": > Both Danish studies show that the risk of developing NAION for the individual patient receiving treatment with Ozempic is only 0.2 per thousand per year, which is fortunately significantly lower than in the American study. NAION is a relatively rare condition, and the extra risk is therefore low. The researchers estimate that for every 10,000 people treated in a year, between 1.5 and 2.5 extra cases will be seen. Sadly it's still relative, and they still leave you the mental maths to work out the natural frequencies.