R Scott Braithwaite1, David Fiellin, Amy C Justice. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine and VA Connecticut Healthcare System, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. Ronald.Braithwaite@va.gov
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines rarely consider comorbid illness, and resulting overuse of health services may increase costs without conferring benefit. OBJECTIVE: To individualize a framework for inferring when patients with comorbid illness are not likely to benefit from colorectal cancer screening guidelines. METHODS: We modified the "payoff time" framework (the minimum time until a guideline's cumulative benefits exceed its cumulative harms) to increase its applicability to a wide range of primary care patients. We show how it may inform colorectal (CR) cancer screening decisions for 3 typical patients in general practice for whom CR screening would be recommended by current guidelines: (1) 60-year-old man with diabetes, congestive heart failure, lung disease, stroke, and substantial frailty; (2) 60-year-old woman with diabetes and obesity, without other comorbidity or frailty; and (3) 50-year-old woman with inflammatory bowel disease. RESULTS: For patient 1, the payoff time for CR screening (minimum time until benefits exceed harms) is 7.3 years, and for patient 2, the payoff time for CR screening is 5.4 years. Evidence is insufficient to estimate the payoff time for patient 3. Because patient 1's estimated life expectancy is 3.7 years (less than his payoff time), he is unlikely to benefit from CR screening. Because patient 2's estimated life expectancy exceeds 10 years (greater than her payoff time), she may benefit from CR screening. Because evidence is insufficient to estimate the payoff time for patient 3, the payoff time framework does not inform decision making. CONCLUSION: The payoff time framework may identify patients for whom particular clinical guidelines are unlikely to confer benefit, and has the potential to decrease unnecessary health care.
BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines rarely consider comorbid illness, and resulting overuse of health services may increase costs without conferring benefit. OBJECTIVE: To individualize a framework for inferring when patients with comorbid illness are not likely to benefit from colorectal cancer screening guidelines. METHODS: We modified the "payoff time" framework (the minimum time until a guideline's cumulative benefits exceed its cumulative harms) to increase its applicability to a wide range of primary care patients. We show how it may inform colorectal (CR) cancer screening decisions for 3 typical patients in general practice for whom CR screening would be recommended by current guidelines: (1) 60-year-old man with diabetes, congestive heart failure, lung disease, stroke, and substantial frailty; (2) 60-year-old woman with diabetes and obesity, without other comorbidity or frailty; and (3) 50-year-old woman with inflammatory bowel disease. RESULTS: For patient 1, the payoff time for CR screening (minimum time until benefits exceed harms) is 7.3 years, and for patient 2, the payoff time for CR screening is 5.4 years. Evidence is insufficient to estimate the payoff time for patient 3. Because patient 1's estimated life expectancy is 3.7 years (less than his payoff time), he is unlikely to benefit from CR screening. Because patient 2's estimated life expectancy exceeds 10 years (greater than her payoff time), she may benefit from CR screening. Because evidence is insufficient to estimate the payoff time for patient 3, the payoff time framework does not inform decision making. CONCLUSION: The payoff time framework may identify patients for whom particular clinical guidelines are unlikely to confer benefit, and has the potential to decrease unnecessary health care.
Authors: M E Martínez; E Giovannucci; D Spiegelman; D J Hunter; W C Willett; G A Colditz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1997-07-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Nancy N Baxter; Joel E Tepper; Sara B Durham; David A Rothenberger; Beth A Virnig Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Luigi Ferrucci; Jack M Guralnik; Chiara Cavazzini; Stefania Bandinelli; Fulvio Lauretani; Benedetta Bartali; Lazzaro Repetto; Dan L Longo Journal: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Brian S Armour; Carol Friedman; M Melinda Pitts; Jennifer Wike; Linda Alley; Jeff Etchason Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: B Delhougne; C Deneux; R Abs; P Chanson; H Fierens; P Laurent-Puig; I Duysburgh; A Stevenaert; A Tabarin; J Delwaide; G Schaison; J Belaïche; A Beckers Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 1995-11 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Rowan T Chlebowski; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Cheryl Ritenbaugh; F Allan Hubbell; Joao Ascensao; Rebecca J Rodabough; Carol A Rosenberg; Victoria M Taylor; Randall Harris; Chu Chen; Lucile L Adams-Campbell; Emily White Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-03-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jennifer L Lund; Tzy-Mey Kuo; M Alan Brookhart; Anne-Marie Meyer; Alexandra F Dalton; Christine E Kistler; Stephanie B Wheeler; Carmen L Lewis Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Rachael K Ross; Tzy-Mey Kuo; Michael Webster-Clark; Carmen L Lewis; Christine E Kistler; Michele Jonsson Funk; Jennifer L Lund Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-09-05 Impact factor: 5.562