Bunuel
A new drug to lower cholesterol has entered the market that, when used in combination with existing drugs called statins, can reduce the risk of heart disease more effectively than statins alone. Patients who tried the new drug in a clinical trial were able to lessen their daily dose of statins without a corresponding increase in blood cholesterol levels. Statins alone, however, cost less, and the money patients saved on statins rarely surpassed the added cost of the new drug. Therefore, for most patients with high cholesterol, adding the new drug to their treatment regimen would be unlikely to lower healthcare costs.
Which of the following would it be most helpful to know in order to analyze the argument?
My thought-process to finding OA in 1:01 min:
A. Whether there is a type of high cholesterol that can increase the risk of heart disease but against which both statins and the new drug are similarly ineffective
-
we don't care about new type of cholesterolB. Whether the standards for what constitutes high cholesterol have been constant in the years before and after the clinical trial
-
No debate around what's high and what's low cholesterolC. Whether the typical treatment for elevated cholesterol levels tends to be more costly than typical treatments for related conditions
-
we dont care about treatment of related conditionsD. Whether most of the patients in the clinical trial continued to take more statins than was necessary
-
Given, cost of statins < cost of new drug,
but what if a patient requires only 1 dose of new drug(say its worth around 100$) whereas he/she requires 10 doses of Statin(say it costs around 20 bucks per dose) for same levels of effectiveness?
Definitely worth the higher cost per dose then. CORRECT. E. Whether, for most patients in the clinical trial, high cholesterol is their most pressing health concern
-
irrelevant again