Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24744274›Full record

ArticleCirculation2014

Patient-accessible tool for shared decision making in cardiovascular primary prevention: balancing longevity benefits against medication disutility.

Marianna Fontana, Perviz Asaria, Michela Moraldo, Judith Finegold, Khalil Hassanally, Charlotte H Manisty, Darrel P Francis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Circulation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Towards better blood pressure: Do non-pharmacological strategies provide the right path?Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Marianna Fontana *International Centre for Circulatory Health, National Heart and lung Institute, Imperial College London, UK.
Perviz Asaria *International Centre for Circulatory Health, National Heart and lung Institute, Imperial College London, UK.
Michela MoraldoInternational Centre for Circulatory Health, National Heart and lung Institute, Imperial College London, UK.
Judith FinegoldInternational Centre for Circulatory Health, National Heart and lung Institute, Imperial College London, UK.
Khalil HassanallyInternational Centre for Circulatory Health, National Heart and lung Institute, Imperial College London, UK.
Charlotte H ManistyInternational Centre for Circulatory Health, National Heart and lung Institute, Imperial College London, UK.
Darrel P FrancisInternational Centre for Circulatory Health, National Heart and lung Institute, Imperial College London, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/10/38/28268British Heart Foundation PG/08/115/25781Wellcome Trust 092853
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary prevention guidelines focus on risk, often assuming negligible aversion to medication, yet most patients discontinue primary prevention statins within 3 years. We quantify real-world distribution of medication disutility and separately calculate the average utilities for a range of risk strata. METHOD AND

resultsWe randomly sampled 360 members of the general public in London. Medication aversion was quantified as the gain in lifespan required by each individual to offset the inconvenience (disutility) of taking an idealized daily preventative tablet. In parallel, we constructed tables of expected gain in lifespan (utility) from initiating statin therapy for each age group, sex, and cardiovascular risk profile in the population. This allowed comparison of the widths of the distributions of medication disutility and of group-average expectation of longevity gain. Observed medication disutility ranged from 1 day to >10 years of life being required by subjects (median, 6 months; interquartile range, 1-36 months) to make daily preventative therapy worthwhile. Average expected longevity benefit from statins at ages ≥50 years ranges from 3.6 months (low-risk women) to 24.3 months (high-risk men).

conclusionWe can no longer assume that medication disutility is almost zero. Over one-quarter of subjects had disutility exceeding the group-average longevity gain from statins expected even for the highest-risk (ie, highest-gain) group. Future primary prevention studies might explore medication disutility in larger populations. Patients may differ more in disutility than in prospectively definable utility (which provides only group-average estimates). Consultations could be enriched by assessing disutility and exploring its reasons.

Indexed as

Health SurveysLongevityAdultBlood PressureCardiovascular DiseasesCholesterolDecision MakingDrug MonitoringFemaleHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsLondonMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationPrevalenceCholesterolHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitorscompliancehydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitorsprimary prevention

Identifiers

PMID24744274
PMCPMC4751622

What OpenQuestion holds

Texttitle and abstract
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.