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
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.

View larger version (6K):
[in a new window]
Areas of squares represent number of lives saved by spending
£100 000 on each of four drugs after myocardial infarction. A:
soluble aspirin 150 mg daily in first five weeks; B: soluble aspirin
150 mg daily long term; C: atenolol 50 mg daily; D: simvastatin
20 mg daily.
I do not argue that we should abandon secondary prevention with lipid
lowering agents, but we should concentrate on doing the easy and most
cost effective things well. By these criteria, aspirin, then Payment for chronic disease management should include coronary
heart disease
EDITOR When the banding system of health promotion in general practice was
abolished the requirement for general practitioners to provide coronary
secondary prevention was also abolished; the long term care of diabetic
and asthmatic patients, however, was ensured by separate payments for
chronic disease management for these conditions. Local medical
committees were charged with setting up health promotion committees, to
which all general practitioners had to submit their own protocols for
health promotion, which might include coronary disease. No guidance was
given about what these protocols should cover or how they should be
structured. No way of monitoring their performance or outcomes has ever
been proposed.
The Coronary Prevention Group has been lobbying the BMA's General
Practitioners Committee to negotiate for the inclusion of coronary
disease in the specific payment scheme for chronic disease management.
There are four justifications for this approach: secondary prevention
of coronary disease is effective2; secondary prevention of
coronary disease in general practice is far more cost effective than
primary prevention3; secondary prevention is not currently being provided adequately in the United Kingdom
4 5
; and
paying general practitioners to provide secondary prevention is likely to improve that provision. Plenty of evidence supports the first three
of these justifications, but the Coronary Prevention Group was unable
to find any evidence to support its belief that paying general
practitioners to perform chronic disease management was effective.
Campbell et al have now provided that evidence.
The Coronary Prevention Group strongly believes that improved secondary
prevention of coronary disease would best be served by general
practitioners' representatives negotiating with the government for
coronary heart disease to be included in the payment scheme for chronic
disease management, funded by new money. We would encourage all general
practitioners to lobby their representatives on the General
Practitioners Committee for this to happen.
blocking drugs and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, in
suitable cases are orders of magnitude more important than statins.
R E Ferner
West Midlands Centre for Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting, City
Hospital, Birmingham B18 7QH
Campbell et al have confirmed that secondary prevention of
coronary heart disease in Scotland is inadequate but have gone on to
show that the situation can be improved by proper organisation within
general practice.1
Coronary Prevention Group, London WC1E 7DB
© BMJ 1998
Read all Rapid Responses
Israeli students are refusing to perform intimate examinations on anaesthetised women without their informed consent.