Using Classification and Regression Trees (CART) to Identify Prescribing Thresholds for Cardiovascular Disease

Chris Schilling (), Duncan Mortimer, Kim Dalziel, Emma Heeley, John Chalmers and Philip Clarke
Additional contact information
Chris Schilling: University of Melbourne
Kim Dalziel: University of Melbourne
Emma Heeley: The University of Sydney and the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
John Chalmers: The University of Sydney and the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
Philip Clarke: University of Melbourne

PharmacoEconomics, 2016, vol. 34, issue 2, No 12, 195-205

Abstract: Abstract Background and Objective Many guidelines for clinical decisions are hierarchical and nonlinear. Evaluating if these guidelines are used in practice requires methods that can identify such structures and thresholds. Classification and regression trees (CART) were used to analyse prescribing patterns of Australian general practitioners (GPs) for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Our aim was to identify if GPs use absolute risk (AR) guidelines in favour of individual risk factors to inform their prescribing decisions of lipid-lowering medications. Methods We employed administrative prescribing information that is linked to patient-level data from a clinical assessment and patient survey (the AusHeart Study), and assessed prescribing of lipid-lowering medications over a 12-month period for patients (n = 1903) who were not using such medications prior to recruitment. CART models were developed to explain prescribing practice. Out-of-sample performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and optimised via pruning. Results We found that individual risk factors (low-density lipoprotein, diabetes, triglycerides and a history of CVD), GP-estimated rather than Framingham AR, and sociodemographic factors (household income, education) were the predominant drivers of GP prescribing. However, sociodemographic factors and some individual risk factors (triglycerides and CVD history) only become relevant for patients with a particular profile of other risk factors. The ROC area under the curve was 0.63 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.60–0.64). Conclusions There is little evidence that AR guidelines recommended by the National Heart Foundation and National Vascular Disease Prevention Alliance, or conditional individual risk eligibility guidelines from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, are adopted in prescribing practice. The hierarchy of conditional relationships between risk factors and socioeconomic factors identified by CART provides new insights into prescribing decisions. Overall, CART is a useful addition to the analyst’s toolkit when investigating healthcare decisions.

Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-015-0342-3 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
Journal Article: Using Classification and Regression Trees (CART) to Identify Prescribing Thresholds for Cardiovascular Disease (2016)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:34:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-015-0342-3

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-015-0342-3

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().