Letters to the Editor
Prescribing by numbers: pharmacoeconomic consideration
- Aust Prescr 2001;24:51-5
- 1 June 2001
- DOI: 10.18773/austprescr.2001.056
The Editorial Executive Committee welcomes letters, which should be less than 250 words. Before a decision to publish is made, letters which refer to a published article may be sent to the author for a response. Any letter may be sent to an expert for comment. When letters are published, they are usually accompanied in the same issue by their responses or comments. The Committee screens out discourteous, inaccurate or libellous statements. The letters are sub-edited before publication. Authors are required to declare any conflicts of interest. The Committee's decision on publication is final.
Editor, – Referring to comments made by P. Neeskens (Aust Prescr 2000;23:115) on the usefulness of the number needed to treat (NNT), it is worth mentioning that the figures were misquoted. The original article by Eve Hurley (Aust Prescr 2000;23:38) stated that X = event rate control was 4.1% and that Y = event rate active (with gemfibrozil) was 2.7%. In Dr Neeskens' comments these two figures were transposed.
While it may be true that the NNT does not always give a feel of the relevance of an intervention, it certainly does provide a useful measure for comparing interventions when pharmacoeconomic evaluations are performed. From the Helsinki Heart study, it can be calculated that to treat the 71 men for 5 years with gemfibrozil just to prevent one event would cost: 220 (ZAR) x 12 (months) x 71 (men) x 5 (years) = 937 200 ZAR (South African Rands) in drug costs alone. This is equivalent to $220 000. If there is a cost-effective non-pharmacological intervention or an alternative drug that provides the same or similar relative risk reduction (of 34% as quoted) then the use of NNT will help in decision-making for policy-makers as well as clinicians.
Medunsa School of Pharmacy