Annals of Family Medicine
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Annals of Family Medicine 3:545-552 (2005)
© 2005 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.
doi: 10.1370/afm.406
This Article
Right arrow Abstract
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental data: Figure
Right arrow In Brief
Right arrow TRACK Comments: Submit a response
Right arrow TRACK Comments: View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when TRACK Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Woolf, S. H.
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, R. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Woolf, S. H.
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, R. E.

The Break-Even Point: When Medical Advances Are Less Important Than Improving the Fidelity With Which They Are Delivered

Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH1 and Robert E. Johnson, PhD2

1 Departments of Family Medicine, Epidemiology, and Community Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Fairfax, Va
2 Departments of Biostatistics and Family Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va



View larger version (22K):

[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. "The Break-even Point" (for a drug that reduces mortality by 20%).

Triangle A. If 100,000 patients are destined to die from a disease, a drug that reduces death rates by 20% (relative risk reduction [RRR] = 0.20) will save 16,000 lives (A1) if delivered to 80% of eligible patients. Increasing delivery to 100% would save 4,000 more lives (A2). To save as many lives with without improving upon the delivery rate of 80% (A3), the RRR of the drug must be increased to at least 25% (‘break-even point").

Triangle B. Delivering the drug to only 60% of patients would save only 12,000 lives (B1), and improving delivery to 100% would save 8,000 additional lives. To save 8,000 additional lives without improving upon the delivery rate of 60% (B2), the RRR of the drug must be increased to at least 33.3% ("break-even point"). Developing a more efficacious drug is more beneficial than improving access only if the new relative risk reduction (RRR) exceeds the existing RRR divided by the proportion of the population exposed to treatment. The complete nomogram from which the figure derives is provided by the Annals in an online appendix available at http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/3/6/545/DC1.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the Annals of Family Medicine.