Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Here’s an NNT for your thoughts

  • Print
  • Comments (11)
  • Rate
  • Save

So there I was, innocently reading NICE’s multimorbidity guidance. True, that’s not a combination of words you’d necessarily expect at the top end of a Copperfield blog. But I look at these things so you don’t have to. In fact, this latest effort is relatively OK, although, where NICE guidance is concerned, that ‘relatively’ is very heavily weighted.

And that’s why I fell off my chair

Anyway, in the midst of all that frailty, polypharmacy and care-planny stuff, there was this link to a ‘database of treatment effects’, which I checked out, on account of not getting out much these days. And that was the point when I fell off my chair.

To explain, I’ve got into bad prescribing habits. In particular, I have neglected the concept of ‘number needed to treat’ (NNT). It’s probably lurking on my computer system somewhere, along with other, smiley-faced patient decision aids that I don’t use. Why would I, given I’ve been so crushed by the QOF/workload/boredom that my shared decision making when, say, prescribing statins for CVD prevention, amounts to ‘take these or die’.

And now this. To take a random example from the guidance, anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation – currently seen as the go-to, evidence-based, incentive-encouraged, numero uno, no-ischaemic-brainer intervention – has an NNT over one year of 40. Which is, you know, not bad, but still leaves 39 punters popping expensive/inconvenient anticloggers for nothing every year. Or far worse than nothing, if you happen to bleed to death.

Statins in secondary CV prevention, then? I’m a sceptic, but even at my most rampantly scepticaemic, I happily dish out the nation’s favourite prescribed drug to the cardiologically compromised. NNT over one year to prevent one CV death? 239. Yowzers.

But, of course, statins in primary prevention is the Big One, and you’ll be familiar with those rewarding visits from patients sent by pharmacists or mobile units; since I refuse to do those stupid Health Checks myself, they’re performed by feckless buffoons, who terrify patients with complex concepts such as ‘heart age’.

And guess what? For primary prevention with statins, we suffer these interactions and patients suffer this anxiety all for an NNT of – wait for it – 595.

And that’s why I fell off my chair. I repeat, we treat 595 patients for one year to prevent one death. Yes, 594 patients needlessly medicalised, pointlessly popping pills, having cholesterols, using up appointments and causing me unnecessary arseache. No wonder the NHS is burnt out, broke and batshit bonkers. This is, by any sane judgement, insane.

So thanks, NICE. I see what you mean in your multimorbidity guidance when you tell us to think about what we’re trying to achieve, and to rationalise treatment when we can. But how about we do that by preventing doctor-initiated multimorbidity in the first place? After all, it’s all about prevention, isn’t it?

Number needed to stop? All of us.

Dr Tony Copperfield is a GP in Essex. You can follow him on Twitter @DocCopperfield

Rate this blog  (4.98 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (11)

  • Excellent.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • theNNT.com rates them even worse!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And that's without the false positives, double negatives, and those outright caused harm by poly-pharmacy, over medicalisation and harms you try to prevent but fail.

    Best of luck guys. Happy Thursday.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Wow - I'm claiming a CPD point for this blog

    Thanks!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Of course QRISK is a ten year risk which makes it sound more impressive. Will keep popping my statin though, would feel such a Wally if I had an MI and I hadn't been!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Antipsychotics: NNT = 1. Hunt.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I failed to find diabetes drug effect on CV or OPH / renal morbidity and mortality.
    They don't have the studies ofr am I too dumb to find it in th eexcel sheet ?
    Thanks

    U. Ucell

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Here's an idea: Why not ask the manufacturer or pharmacist to put the NNT on the pack or label? That would be interesting....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I don't get it. Another Nice guidance advising us to prescribe if 10% 10 year risk. Best if they just go away and let us do our job.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ha Ha!! Thanks Copperfield.One of the joys of General Practice.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say

  • Print
  • Comments (11)
  • Rate
  • Save

From: Copperfield

Dr Tony Copperfield is a jobbing GP in Essex with more than a few chips on his shoulder