National guidance that does not link costs and benefits is worthless
- Nick Freemantle (nf2@york.ac.uk), Senior research fellowa,
- Ruth Barbour, Medical adviserb,
- Richard Johnson, Pharmaceutical adviserb,
- Mike Marchment, Chief executiveb,
- Andrew Kennedy, General practitionerc
- a Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York YO1 5DD
- b Warwickshire Health Authority, Warwick CV34 4DE
- c Croft Medical Centre, Royal Leamington Spa, Warwickshire CV31 1SA
Last month the NHS Executive distributed to health authorities and general practitioners a statement from the Standing Medical Advisory Committee on the use of lipid lowering drugs.1 This argues for a strategy of treatment on the basis of underlying risk, but it adopts a level that is probably unachievable, fails to present the evidence, and ignores cost effectiveness. In so doing it jeopardises the objective of targeting high risk patients, but it also raises questions about the worth of guidance that does not link benefits and costs.
The statement recommends that, having considered other methods of reducing the risk of coronary heart disease, clinicians should give statins to the following three groups of patients. The first priority are patients who have had a myocardial infarction and have low density lipoprotein values of 3.2 mmol/l or more; second are those with angina or other clinically overt atherosclerotic disease with low density lipoprotein values of 3.7 mmol/l or more; and third come those with a high risk of developing coronary heart disease according to the revised Sheffield tables2 and a low density lipoprotein value of 3.7 mmol/l or more. The statement estimates that meeting all three priorities will mean treating 8.2% of the population aged 35-69. No recommendations are made for patients aged over 70, although there is no evidence that benefits are limited to younger patients. The statement was sent …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Bringing Nightingale down to size
Published 29 May 2012
Re: Avoid antimuscarinic drugs in people with dementia
Published 29 May 2012
Re: Strengthening primary health care: Related to the integration of medical training, community service need and health administration
Published 29 May 2012
Re: Strengthening primary health care: Related to the integration of medical training, community service need and health administration
Published 29 May 2012
Health Literacy: Patient involvement and engagement with healthcare
Published 29 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27