The idea of evidence-based guidelines has been around for quite a while. One of their big problems has been that the “evidence” tends to change, often dramatically, and that population-based guidelines are at odds with our increasing understanding that there is wide biochemical variation across individuals. (NEJM Article) High blood pressure is one of the most common chronic conditions and many guidelines regarding its treatment have been promulgated. The most recent “consensus” guidelines were released in 2014. The authors attempted to estimate the effects of treating all patients according to this guideline, which focuses more on diastolic rather than systolic blood pressure for adults under 60, has a higher blood pressure goal for adults 60 or older or for patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease. (These changes were made because the former “evidence-based” guidelines were causing significant harm to many patients.) Using a model that attempted to ascertain how many people would be treated under the guideline compared to how many are actually receiving treatment now, and assuming the treatment would be effective, what different outcomes would be achieved. About 860,000 more people who have been diagnosed with heart disease or high blood pressure would be treated each year from 2014 to 2024 and an additional 8.6 million who have hypertension but not heart disease would also be treated each year. All this new treatment would prevent about 13,000 deaths a year and 56,000 cardiovascular events a year. For some groups the treatment was found to be cost-saving; i.e. the costs of treatment would be outweighed by the savings in prevented medical care, but it is not clear that the researchers added all the costs from people living longer. For other groups, it would be cost-effective, which means it would add to health care spending, but would be worth it in terms of more years of life for the patients. Treating everyone with high blood pressure who should be treated is a worthy goal, but I am dubious about “modeled” results, and you have to be a little leery of the staying power of any guideline.
✅ Subscribe via Email
About this Blog
The Healthy Skeptic is a website about the health care system, and is written by Kevin Roche, who has many years of experience working in the health industry. Mr. Roche is available to assist health care companies through consulting arrangements through Roche Consulting, LLC and may be reached at khroche@healthy-skeptic.com.
Healthy Skeptic Podcast
Research
MedPAC 2019 Report to Congress
June 18, 2019
Headlines
Tags
Access
ACO
Care Management
Chronic Disease
Comparative Effectiveness
Consumer Directed Health
Consumers
Devices
Disease Management
Drugs
EHRs
Elder Care
End-of-Life Care
FDA
Financings
Genomics
Government
Health Care Costs
Health Care Quality
Health Care Reform
Health Insurance
Health Insurance Exchange
HIT
HomeCare
Hospital
Hospital Readmissions
Legislation
M&A
Malpractice
Meaningful Use
Medicaid
Medical Care
Medicare
Medicare Advantage
Mobile
Pay For Performance
Pharmaceutical
Physicians
Providers
Regulation
Repealing Reform
Telehealth
Telemedicine
Wellness and Prevention
Workplace
Related Posts
Commentary
Minnesota Is a Great State for Starting a Business, According to Little Timmy
January 16, 2025
Minnesota Is a Great State for Starting a Business, According to Little Timmy
As usual, Fat Timmy lies when he opens his mouth. Minnesota is about the worst…
Commentary
Inflation Is Tamed?
January 16, 2025
Inflation Is Tamed?
Yesterday's inflation report was wrongly hailed as a sign of slowing price growth.
Commentary
Bias in Social Sciences Research
January 15, 2025
Bias in Social Sciences Research
New research demonstrates that ideological bias permeates the "results" of social science studies.