Should risky treatments be reserved for secondary prevention? Theoretical considerations regarding risk-benefit tradeoffs

Abstract

Objective: Clinical intuition suggests that risk-reducing treatments are more beneficial for patients with greater risk of disease. This intuition contributes to our rationale for tolerating greater adverse event risk in the setting of secondary prevention of certain diseases such as myocardial infarction or stroke. However, under certain conditions treatment benefits may be greater in primary prevention, even when the treatment carries harmful adverse effect potential.

Study design and setting: We present simple decision-theoretic models that illustrate conditions of risk and benefit under which a treatment is predicted to be more beneficial in primary than in secondary prevention.

Results: The models cover a spectrum of possible clinical circumstances, and demonstrate that net benefit in primary prevention can occur despite no benefit (or even net harm) in secondary prevention.

Conclusion: This framework provides a rationale for extending the familiar concept of balancing risks and benefits to account for disease-specific considerations of primary vs. secondary prevention.