Comments on: NNT (Number Needed to Treat)

By: Maternity Care in America | Mark's Daily Apple

Maternity Care in America | Mark's Daily Apple — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:40:39 +0000

[...] NNT (Number Needed to Treat) [...]

By: Taking a break « No Magic Pill

Taking a break « No Magic Pill — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:57:55 +0000

[...] Andrew’s potpourri, colonialism may have given rise to HIV, drugs’ effectiveness exaggerated (gosh, no, really? shocking), local rural practice goes 24/7, the “eew” of public [...]

By: Gary

Gary — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 02:30:09 +0000

NNT is an interesting and informative way of looking at the usefulness of drugs.

I wonder what the NNT would be for non-drug lifestyle changes, such as regular and a non-junk-food diet. I wonder if the NNT for such lifestyle behaviors is smaller (and therefore more effective) for preventing disease and premature death than many of the drugs mentioned.

–Gary

By: Deb

Deb — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 23:50:29 +0000

Interesting article with a lot to think about.

I’ve been on cholesterol lowering meds for over 20 years now. Began as an apparently healthy 35 y.o. woman with a total cholesterol reading of 260, but with an HDL of 18 that did not improve with exercise. Within 6 weeks of beginning treatment, my cholesterol dropped to “acceptable” levels, and my HDLs rose to 80.

I know I am an exception to the rule. My heritage (eastern european) means that it’s likely my ancestors were among those people getting that statin (bacteria?) in their milk products for generations. Likely my “genetic liver” came to expect it in the food. At the lowest dosage available, I get incredible results.

I am not using my experience to argue for a chemical nation. I agree that there are too many people who turn first to drugs instead of diet, exercise, life-style adjustments. Who expect their life to always be perfect. However, it is likely that if I hadn’t have taken a fairly aggressive stand 20 years ago (nobody wanted to treat a healthy pre-menopausal woman for life), I would have had my first heart attack by now.

By: new_me

new_me — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:53:35 +0000

Here in Canada there are many good drug plans that enable people to have all kinds of drugs without needing to pay for them. It doesn’t matter if you’re employed, a senior, a child, a student, or on welfare, the gov’t will see to it that you get your drugs. I have often heard people comment on what a good thing it is that they don’t have to pay for all their drugs or else they wouldn’t be able to take them.

Oh, yes, it is a good thing to be able to take all those drugs for FREE!!

….posted with great cynicism!

By: VT-XFitter

VT-XFitter — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:07:21 +0000

This country is extremely oversaturated by drug companies that need only report positive ’surrogate endpoint’ results, without any standards on NNT and, more importantly, NNH. These companies, along with the predatory insurance companies, have driven the state of American health to inhumanity.
Barack and McCain are about to give us a whole month more of lip service regarding their convoluted plans to provide Americans with some decent level of health care but it seems to me that the solution is simple. Like foods report Nutrition Facts, every drug must come with a label with three numbers on it: NNT, NNH, and NNK (kill). Maybe then, Big Pharma would stop shelling out countless billions on R&D with marginal benefit but marketability. Maybe then, drugs of significant importance won’t be so pricey. Maybe then, insurance would be more inclined to pay out for things like pricey oncology consultations, as they’re not being bled by idiotic crap like Lipitor.
Sorry of the rant.

PS- Protect Vermont!!

By: McFly

McFly — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:11:38 +0000

Very useful information. Though, I’d be careful to use the ineffectiveness of Lipitor as a poster boy for all pharmaceuticals. I wonder what the NNT of Viagra is?

By: Amy

Amy — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:31:43 +0000

I had a discussion with my mother (RN, Professor of Nursing) last night about the relative safety of drugs in the US vs. Canada (or Mexico). She disagreed with my assertion that the FDA isn’t terribly interested in making sure my prescriptions are really designed to help, but rather that they are slightly less likely to harm than help. I was unfamiliar with NNT, but will definitely look more into that so as to be better armed for my next argument.

Thanks for informative post (as usual)!

By: Conny

Conny — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:26:14 +0000

Great reading! Gives me a lot to think about. If nothing else, I will look-up a given prescription’s side effects BEFORE purchasing the item. The side effects most often sound worse than the condition intended to be treated. I think that people are so overexposed to the pharmaceutical ads (in all media) that they don’t even bother to listen anymore, like a bad radio commercial spot.

By: Donna

Donna — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:32:00 +0000

Also, what about the danger of becoming “addicted” to these prescription drugs. That’s another problem that happens to some people.