Subject: | | Re: Is CVD risk completely reversible? |
From: | | "Toby Lipman 7, Collingwood Terrace, Jesmond, Newcastle upon Tyne. Tel 0191-2811060 (home), 0191-2869178 (surgery)" <[log in to unmask]> |
Reply-To: | | Toby Lipman 7, Collingwood Terrace, Jesmond, Newcastle upon Tyne. Tel 0191-2811060 (home), 0191-2869178 (surgery) |
Date: | | Sun, 7 Mar 1999 22:03:12 +0000 |
Content-Type: | | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
|
|
In message <C0F01F10DD54D2119CD30060B0680ABC017244A0@exchange_1>, Gary
Jackson <[log in to unmask]> writes
>For example, lets take two 35 yr old hypertensive smokers. One we treat
>with anti-hypertensives, achieving good control. The other we "watchfully
>wait". Both decline our attempts to stop smoking. Neither became
>symptomatic. At age 45 we start the 2nd on antihypertensive treatment,
>achieving like control. My understanding is that at this point their future
>risks (chance of death/MI etc) are identical? Ie 10 years of presumably
>extra workload on the heart/blood vessels had no effect on the untreated
>person? And this means the only point of treating the first for 10 years
>was the risk reduction you achieved over that 10 year period.
>
Yes that's the point I was trying to make. Is there evidence to answer
this question? - and of course if there is a difference in the rate of
CVD events in patients managed in these two ways say at age 55, then an
NNT can be calculated. Or is Rod saying that the absolute risk reduction
will be so small as to make NNT unreasonably high?
Toby
--
Toby Lipman 7, Collingwood Terrace, Jesmond, Newcastle upon Tyne. Tel
0191-2811060 (home), 0191-2437000 (surgery)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
|
|
|