Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Cost effectiveness of treatment must be borne in mind
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
Campbell et al surveyed the true rates of treatment with various
forms of secondary prophylaxis in patients with coronary heart disease,
at least in those general practices that participated.1 The authors do not consider the utilitarian argument that it is best to
do the greatest good for the greatest number. The figure shows the
number of lives saved per £100 000 spent on drugs for secondary
prevention, based on the approximate number of patient years of
treatment needed to save one life. If "all bad things" are
considered2 then aspirin (after the first five
weeks)3 and simvastatin4 will both prevent
about one bad thing for every 30-40 years of patient use, but
£100 000 of aspirin (half a 300 mg tablet a day) will prevent about
1300 events, while £100 000 of simvastatin (20 mg a day) will
prevent only eight.
| Table Removed (Available Only in the Full Text) |
I do not argue that we should abandon secondary prevention with lipid
lowering agents,
Read all Rapid Responses