Number needed to treat

February 4, 2008

Really, it’s the key statistic of pharmaceutical effectiveness. Read about how it’s ignored or misused by the drug industry.



Related posts:

  1. Number needed to treat: Time to let the secret out
  2. The waning effect of direct to consumer drug advertising
  3. Secrets of the pharmaceutical industry
  4. Will banning drug company sponsorship harm patients?
  5. Did the pharmaceutical industry pressure CBS to pull a television pilot?
  6. ACP: Putting effectiveness into the health care equation: Rational or rationing?
  7. Pharma and the quick fix


KevinMD.com on Facebook


  Follow on Twitter   Subscribe



{ 3 comments }

1 Anonymous February 4, 2008 at 1:45 pm

It’s even worse than that. Suppose you treat 100 to help one. Then suppose that a different one out of the 100 suffers serious side effects. You’ve harmed one to help one.

I took a statin for “borderline” cholesterol. Otherwise, I had good health all my life: no family history of heart disease or high blood pressure. My dad is 82. His dad lived to age 91. The statin damaged my leg muscles and there’s not a thing the doctors or physical therapists could do to help me. It has been three years of just enough disability that I can’t do the job I loved anymore. I had to change my very nice PCP because I couldn’t even think of him anymore without getting angry. If I had known the NNT, I would never have taken the statin to begin with.

2 Anonymous February 4, 2008 at 10:47 pm

How to lie with statistics: in the 21st century.

3 Dr. Matthew Mintz February 5, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Though it is true that NNT is a very helpful number, and drug companies use relative risk (2/100 in placebo vs 1/100 would be a 50% reduction) compared to absolute risk (1% reduction in ex above), you have to be careful by saying “only 1/100 would benefit”. Sometimes NNT of 5 is unacceptable and NNT of 500 is acceptable. It depends on risk, benefits and costs. Chance of having a house fire is 1/200. You wouldn’t say that fire insurance is a waste because only 1/200 would actually have a benefit. For statins, a heart attack is a pretty bad thing, even if it doesn’t kill you. The most common side effect of a statin is muscle pain (myalgia) which is usually mild, usually goes away and occus in about 3% of patients. So, for 100 people taking statins, 1 would have a heart attack prevented and 3 would get myalgia. These are actually pretty good numbers, if you don’t take cost into account. So the real issue is are we willing to pay more than 1/4 million dollars (cost of 100 people on Lipitor for 3 years) to prevent one heart attack?
http://www.drmintz.com

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post: More care is not better care

Next post: My take: Mandate wars, reimbursement, ignoring physicians

Site Meter