Whither our Art? Clinical Wisdom & Evidence-based Medicine

The relationship between evidence-based medicine (EBM) and clinical judgement is the subject of conceptual and practical dispute. For example, EBM and clinical guidelines are seen to increasingly dominate medical decision-making at the expense of other, human elements, and to threaten the art of medicine. Clinical wisdom always remains open to question. We want to know why particular beliefs are held, and the epistemological status of claims based in wisdom or experience. The paper critically appraises a number of claims and distinctions, and attempts to clarify the connections between EBM, clinical experience and judgement, and the objective and evaluative categories of medicine. I conclude that to demystify clinical wisdom is not to devalue it. EBM ought not be conceived as needing to be limited or balanced by clinical wisdom, since if its language is translatable into terms comprehensible and applicable to individuals, it helps constitute clinical wisdom. Failure to appreciate this constitutive relation will help perpetuate medical paternalism and delay the adoption of properly evidence-based practice, which would be both unethical and unwise.

Cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with average cholesterol levels and established ischaemic heart disease: is it cost-effective?

Objective: To measure the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with established ischaemic heart disease and average baseline cholesterol levels. Design: Prospective economic evaluation within a double-blind randomised trial (Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease [LIPID]), in which patients with a history of unstable angina or previous myocardial infarction were randomised to receive 40 mg of pravastatin daily or matching placebo. Patients and setting: 9014 patients aged 35-75 years from 85 centres in Australia and New Zealand, recruited from June 1990 to December 1992. Main outcome measures: Cost per death averted, cost per life-year gained, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, calculated from measures of hospitalisations, medication use, outpatient visits, and quality of life. Results: The LIPID trial showed a 22% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (P < 0.001). Over a mean follow-up of 6 years, hospital admissions for coronary heart disease and coronary revascularisation were reduced by about 20%. Over this period, pravastatin cost $A4913 per patient, but reduced total hospitalisation costs by $A1385 per patient and other long-term medication costs by $A360 per patient. In a subsample of patients, average quality of life was 0.98 (where 0 = dead and 1 = normal good health); the treatment groups were not significantly different. The absolute reduction in all-cause mortality was 3.0% (95% CI, 1.6%-4.4%), and the incremental cost was $3246 per patient, resulting in a cost per life saved of $107730 (95% Cl, $68626-$209881) within the study period. Extrapolating long-term survival from the placebo group, the undiscounted cost per life-year saved was $7695 (and $10 938 with costs and life-years discounted at an annual rate of 5%). Conclusions: Pravastatin therapy for patients with a history of myocardial infarction or unstable angina and average cholesterol levels reduces all-cause mortality and appears cost effective compared with accepted treatments in high-income countries.

Risk factors for non-haemorrhagic stroke in patients with coronary heart disease and the effect of lipid-modifying therapy with pravastatin

Objective To determine the relative importance of recognised risk factors for non-haemorrhagic stroke, including serum cholesterol and the effect of cholesterol-lowering therapy, on the occurrence of non-haemorrhagic stroke in patients enrolled in the LIPID (Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease) study. Design The LIPID study was a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of the efficacy on coronary heart disease mortality of pravastatin therapy over 6 years in 9014 patients with previous acute coronary syndromes and baseline total cholesterol of 4-7 mmol/l. Following identification of patients who had suffered non-haemorrhagic stroke, a pre-specified secondary end point, multivariate Cox regression was used to determine risk in the total population. Time-to-event analysis was used to determine the effect of pravastatin therapy on the rate of non-haemorrhagic stroke. Results There were 388 non-haemorrhagic strokes in 350 patients. Factors conferring risk of future non-haemorrhagic stroke were age, atrial fibrillation, prior stroke, diabetes, hypertension, systolic blood pressure, cigarette smoking, body mass index, male sex and creatinine clearance. Baseline lipids did not predict non-haemorrhagic stroke. Treatment with pravastatin reduced non-haemorrhagic stroke by 23% (P= 0.016) when considered alone, and 21% (P= 0.024) after adjustment for other risk factors. Conclusions The study confirmed the variety of risk factors for non-haemorrhagic stroke. From the risk predictors, a simple prognostic index was created for nonhaemorrhagic stroke to identify a group of patients at high risk. Treatment with pravastatin resulted in significant additional benefit after allowance for risk factors. (C) 2002 Lippincott Williams Wilkins.