R Scott Braithwaite1, John Concato, Chung Chou Chang, Mark S Roberts, Amy C Justice. 1. Section of General Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, West Haven Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, VACS 11 ACSL-G, 950 Campbell Ave, West Haven, CT 06516, USA. Ronald.braithwaite@va.gov
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence is accumulating to suggest that clinical guidelines should be modified for patients with comorbidities, yet there is no quantitative and objective approach that considers benefits together with risks. METHODS: We outline a framework using a payoff time, which we define as the minimum elapsed time until the cumulative incremental benefits of a guideline exceed its cumulative incremental harms. If the payoff time of a guideline exceeds a patient's comorbidity-adjusted life expectancy, then the guideline is unlikely to offer a benefit and should be modified. We illustrate the framework by applying this method to colorectal cancer screening guidelines for 50-year-old men with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and 60-year-old women with congestive heart failure (CHF). RESULTS: We estimated that colorectal cancer screening payoff times for 50-year-old men with HIV would range from 1.9 to 5.0 years and that colorectal cancer screening payoff times for 60-year-old women with CHF would range from 0.7 to 2.9 years. Because the payoff times for 50-year-old men with HIV were lower than their life expectancies (12.5-24.0 years), colorectal cancer screening may be beneficial for these patients. In contrast, because payoff times for 60-year-old women with CHF were sometimes greater than their life expectancies (0.6 to >5 years), colorectal cancer screening is likely to be harmful for some of these patients. CONCLUSION: Use of a payoff time calculation may be a feasible framework to tailor clinical guidelines to the comorbidity profiles of individual patients.
BACKGROUND: Evidence is accumulating to suggest that clinical guidelines should be modified for patients with comorbidities, yet there is no quantitative and objective approach that considers benefits together with risks. METHODS: We outline a framework using a payoff time, which we define as the minimum elapsed time until the cumulative incremental benefits of a guideline exceed its cumulative incremental harms. If the payoff time of a guideline exceeds a patient's comorbidity-adjusted life expectancy, then the guideline is unlikely to offer a benefit and should be modified. We illustrate the framework by applying this method to colorectal cancer screening guidelines for 50-year-old men with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and 60-year-old women with congestive heart failure (CHF). RESULTS: We estimated that colorectal cancer screening payoff times for 50-year-old men with HIV would range from 1.9 to 5.0 years and that colorectal cancer screening payoff times for 60-year-old women with CHF would range from 0.7 to 2.9 years. Because the payoff times for 50-year-old men with HIV were lower than their life expectancies (12.5-24.0 years), colorectal cancer screening may be beneficial for these patients. In contrast, because payoff times for 60-year-old women with CHF were sometimes greater than their life expectancies (0.6 to >5 years), colorectal cancer screening is likely to be harmful for some of these patients. CONCLUSION: Use of a payoff time calculation may be a feasible framework to tailor clinical guidelines to the comorbidity profiles of individual patients.
Authors: F Loeve; M L Brown; R Boer; M van Ballegooijen; G J van Oortmarssen; J D Habbema Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-04-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: R K Khandker; J D Dulski; J B Kilpatrick; R P Ellis; J B Mitchell; W B Baine Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2000 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: R Scott Braithwaite; Steven Shechter; Chung-Chou H Chang; Andrew Schaefer; Mark S Roberts Journal: Value Health Date: 2007 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: R Scott Braithwaite; Amy C Justice; Chung-Chou H Chang; Jennifer S Fusco; Stephen R Raffanti; John B Wong; Mark S Roberts Journal: Am J Med Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Cary P Gross; Gail J McAvay; Harlan M Krumholz; A David Paltiel; Devina Bhasin; Mary E Tinetti Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-11-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Leonardo M Fabbri; Cynthia Boyd; Piera Boschetto; Klaus F Rabe; A Sonia Buist; Barbara Yawn; Bruce Leff; David M Kent; Holger J Schünemann Journal: Proc Am Thorac Soc Date: 2012-12
Authors: Holly M Holmes; Lillian C Min; Michael Yee; Ravi Varadhan; Jenny Basran; William Dale; Cynthia M Boyd Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Donna M Zulman; Steven M Asch; Susana B Martins; Eve A Kerr; Brian B Hoffman; Mary K Goldstein Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Amy C Justice; Sharada P Modur; Janet P Tate; Keri N Althoff; Lisa P Jacobson; Kelly A Gebo; Mari M Kitahata; Michael A Horberg; John T Brooks; Kate Buchacz; Sean B Rourke; Anita Rachlis; Sonia Napravnik; Joseph Eron; James H Willig; Richard Moore; Gregory D Kirk; Ronald Bosch; Benigno Rodriguez; Robert S Hogg; Jennifer Thorne; James J Goedert; Marina Klein; John Gill; Steven Deeks; Timothy R Sterling; Kathryn Anastos; Stephen J Gange Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 3.731