Benefit-harm analysis and charts for individualized and preference-sensitive prevention: Example of low dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer

Milo A. Puhan, Tsung Yu, Inge Stegeman, Ravi Varadhan, Sonal Singh, Cynthia Boyd

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Clinical practice guidelines provide separate recommendations for different diseases that may be prevented or treated by the same intervention. Also, they commonly provide recommendations for entire populations but not for individuals. To address these two limitations, our aim was to conduct benefit-harm analyses for a wide range of individuals using the example of low dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer and to develop Benefit-Harm Charts that show the overall benefit-harm balance for individuals. Methods: We used quantitative benefit-harm modeling that included 16 outcomes to estimate the probability that low dose aspirin provides more benefits than harms for a wide range of men and women between 45 and 84years of age and without a previous myocardial infarction, severe ischemic stroke, or cancer. We repeated the quantitative benefit-harm modeling for different combinations of age, sex, and outcome risks for severe ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, cancers, and severe gastrointestinal bleeds. The analyses considered weights for the outcomes, statistical uncertainty of the effects of aspirin, and death as a competing risk. We constructed Benefit-Harm Charts that show the benefit-harm balance for different combinations of outcome risks. Results: The Benefit-Harm Charts (http://www.benefit-harm-balance.com ) we have created show that the benefit-harm balance differs largely across a primary prevention population. Low dose aspirin is likely to provide more benefits than harms in men, elderly people, and in those at low risk for severe gastrointestinal bleeds. Individual preferences have a major impact on the benefit-harm balance. If, for example, it is a high priority for individuals to prevent stroke and severe cancers while severe gastrointestinal bleeds are deemed to be of little importance, the benefit-harm balance is likely to favor low dose aspirin for most individuals. Instead, if severe gastrointestinal bleeds are judged to be similarly important compared to the benefit outcomes, low dose aspirin is unlikely to provide more benefits than harms. Conclusions: Benefit-Harm Charts support individualized benefit-harm assessments and decision making. Similarly, individualized benefit-harm assessments may allow guideline developers to issue more finely granulated recommendations that reduce the risk of over- and underuse of interventions. The example of low dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer shows that it may be time for guideline developers to provide combined recommendations for different diseases that may be prevented or treated by the same intervention.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number250
JournalBMC Medicine
Volume13
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2015

Fingerprint

Primary Prevention
Aspirin
Cardiovascular Diseases
Neoplasms
Stroke
Myocardial Infarction
Guidelines
Gastrointestinal Neoplasms
Practice Guidelines
Population
Uncertainty
Decision Making
Weights and Measures

Keywords

  • Aspirin
  • Benefit-risk
  • Cancer
  • Cardiovascular
  • Guidelines
  • Harm
  • Personalized
  • Prevention
  • Randomized trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Benefit-harm analysis and charts for individualized and preference-sensitive prevention : Example of low dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer. / Puhan, Milo A.; Yu, Tsung; Stegeman, Inge; Varadhan, Ravi; Singh, Sonal; Boyd, Cynthia.

In: BMC Medicine, Vol. 13, No. 1, 250, 01.10.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{92239e225a8749efa349111cdc39b42c,
title = "Benefit-harm analysis and charts for individualized and preference-sensitive prevention: Example of low dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer",
abstract = "Background: Clinical practice guidelines provide separate recommendations for different diseases that may be prevented or treated by the same intervention. Also, they commonly provide recommendations for entire populations but not for individuals. To address these two limitations, our aim was to conduct benefit-harm analyses for a wide range of individuals using the example of low dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer and to develop Benefit-Harm Charts that show the overall benefit-harm balance for individuals. Methods: We used quantitative benefit-harm modeling that included 16 outcomes to estimate the probability that low dose aspirin provides more benefits than harms for a wide range of men and women between 45 and 84years of age and without a previous myocardial infarction, severe ischemic stroke, or cancer. We repeated the quantitative benefit-harm modeling for different combinations of age, sex, and outcome risks for severe ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, cancers, and severe gastrointestinal bleeds. The analyses considered weights for the outcomes, statistical uncertainty of the effects of aspirin, and death as a competing risk. We constructed Benefit-Harm Charts that show the benefit-harm balance for different combinations of outcome risks. Results: The Benefit-Harm Charts (http://www.benefit-harm-balance.com ) we have created show that the benefit-harm balance differs largely across a primary prevention population. Low dose aspirin is likely to provide more benefits than harms in men, elderly people, and in those at low risk for severe gastrointestinal bleeds. Individual preferences have a major impact on the benefit-harm balance. If, for example, it is a high priority for individuals to prevent stroke and severe cancers while severe gastrointestinal bleeds are deemed to be of little importance, the benefit-harm balance is likely to favor low dose aspirin for most individuals. Instead, if severe gastrointestinal bleeds are judged to be similarly important compared to the benefit outcomes, low dose aspirin is unlikely to provide more benefits than harms. Conclusions: Benefit-Harm Charts support individualized benefit-harm assessments and decision making. Similarly, individualized benefit-harm assessments may allow guideline developers to issue more finely granulated recommendations that reduce the risk of over- and underuse of interventions. The example of low dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer shows that it may be time for guideline developers to provide combined recommendations for different diseases that may be prevented or treated by the same intervention.",
keywords = "Aspirin, Benefit-risk, Cancer, Cardiovascular, Guidelines, Harm, Personalized, Prevention, Randomized trials",
author = "Puhan, {Milo A.} and Tsung Yu and Inge Stegeman and Ravi Varadhan and Sonal Singh and Cynthia Boyd",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1186/s12916-015-0493-2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
journal = "BMC Medicine",
issn = "1741-7015",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Benefit-harm analysis and charts for individualized and preference-sensitive prevention

T2 - Example of low dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer

AU - Puhan, Milo A.

AU - Yu, Tsung

AU - Stegeman, Inge

AU - Varadhan, Ravi

AU - Singh, Sonal

AU - Boyd, Cynthia

PY - 2015/10/1

Y1 - 2015/10/1

N2 - Background: Clinical practice guidelines provide separate recommendations for different diseases that may be prevented or treated by the same intervention. Also, they commonly provide recommendations for entire populations but not for individuals. To address these two limitations, our aim was to conduct benefit-harm analyses for a wide range of individuals using the example of low dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer and to develop Benefit-Harm Charts that show the overall benefit-harm balance for individuals. Methods: We used quantitative benefit-harm modeling that included 16 outcomes to estimate the probability that low dose aspirin provides more benefits than harms for a wide range of men and women between 45 and 84years of age and without a previous myocardial infarction, severe ischemic stroke, or cancer. We repeated the quantitative benefit-harm modeling for different combinations of age, sex, and outcome risks for severe ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, cancers, and severe gastrointestinal bleeds. The analyses considered weights for the outcomes, statistical uncertainty of the effects of aspirin, and death as a competing risk. We constructed Benefit-Harm Charts that show the benefit-harm balance for different combinations of outcome risks. Results: The Benefit-Harm Charts (http://www.benefit-harm-balance.com ) we have created show that the benefit-harm balance differs largely across a primary prevention population. Low dose aspirin is likely to provide more benefits than harms in men, elderly people, and in those at low risk for severe gastrointestinal bleeds. Individual preferences have a major impact on the benefit-harm balance. If, for example, it is a high priority for individuals to prevent stroke and severe cancers while severe gastrointestinal bleeds are deemed to be of little importance, the benefit-harm balance is likely to favor low dose aspirin for most individuals. Instead, if severe gastrointestinal bleeds are judged to be similarly important compared to the benefit outcomes, low dose aspirin is unlikely to provide more benefits than harms. Conclusions: Benefit-Harm Charts support individualized benefit-harm assessments and decision making. Similarly, individualized benefit-harm assessments may allow guideline developers to issue more finely granulated recommendations that reduce the risk of over- and underuse of interventions. The example of low dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer shows that it may be time for guideline developers to provide combined recommendations for different diseases that may be prevented or treated by the same intervention.

AB - Background: Clinical practice guidelines provide separate recommendations for different diseases that may be prevented or treated by the same intervention. Also, they commonly provide recommendations for entire populations but not for individuals. To address these two limitations, our aim was to conduct benefit-harm analyses for a wide range of individuals using the example of low dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer and to develop Benefit-Harm Charts that show the overall benefit-harm balance for individuals. Methods: We used quantitative benefit-harm modeling that included 16 outcomes to estimate the probability that low dose aspirin provides more benefits than harms for a wide range of men and women between 45 and 84years of age and without a previous myocardial infarction, severe ischemic stroke, or cancer. We repeated the quantitative benefit-harm modeling for different combinations of age, sex, and outcome risks for severe ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, cancers, and severe gastrointestinal bleeds. The analyses considered weights for the outcomes, statistical uncertainty of the effects of aspirin, and death as a competing risk. We constructed Benefit-Harm Charts that show the benefit-harm balance for different combinations of outcome risks. Results: The Benefit-Harm Charts (http://www.benefit-harm-balance.com ) we have created show that the benefit-harm balance differs largely across a primary prevention population. Low dose aspirin is likely to provide more benefits than harms in men, elderly people, and in those at low risk for severe gastrointestinal bleeds. Individual preferences have a major impact on the benefit-harm balance. If, for example, it is a high priority for individuals to prevent stroke and severe cancers while severe gastrointestinal bleeds are deemed to be of little importance, the benefit-harm balance is likely to favor low dose aspirin for most individuals. Instead, if severe gastrointestinal bleeds are judged to be similarly important compared to the benefit outcomes, low dose aspirin is unlikely to provide more benefits than harms. Conclusions: Benefit-Harm Charts support individualized benefit-harm assessments and decision making. Similarly, individualized benefit-harm assessments may allow guideline developers to issue more finely granulated recommendations that reduce the risk of over- and underuse of interventions. The example of low dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer shows that it may be time for guideline developers to provide combined recommendations for different diseases that may be prevented or treated by the same intervention.

KW - Aspirin

KW - Benefit-risk

KW - Cancer

KW - Cardiovascular

KW - Guidelines

KW - Harm

KW - Personalized

KW - Prevention

KW - Randomized trials

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84942597080&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84942597080&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12916-015-0493-2

DO - 10.1186/s12916-015-0493-2

M3 - Article

C2 - 26423305

AN - SCOPUS:84942597080

VL - 13

JO - BMC Medicine

JF - BMC Medicine

SN - 1741-7015

IS - 1

M1 - 250

ER -