Utility of the number needed to treat in paediatric haematological cancer randomised controlled treatment trials: a systematic review

Effect of alirocumab and evolocumab on all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular events: A meta-analysis focusing on the number needed to treat

AIMS

The efficacy of anti-proprotein convertase subtilisin/Kexin type 9 (PCSK9) monoclonal antibodies in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains unclear. Therefore, this study aims to assess the effect of PCSK9 inhibitors (alirocumab and evolocumab) on ASCVD patients considering the number needed to treat (NNT).

METHODS

We reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effects of alirocumab or evolocumab and placebo or standards of care. All articles were published in English up to May 2022. Using random effect models, we estimated risk ratios (RRs), NNT, and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

We incorporated 12 RCTs with 53 486 patients total, of which 27 674 received PCSK9 inhibitors and 25 812 received placebos. The mean follow-up duration was 1.56 years. The effect of PCSK9 inhibitors on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was statistically significant, and the corresponding mean NNT was 36. Alirocumab reduced the risk of MACE, stroke, and coronary revascularization; the corresponding mean NNT were 37, 319, and 107, respectively. Evolocumab positively affected MACE, myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary revascularization; the corresponding mean NNT were 32, 78, 267, and 65, respectively. The effects of alirocumab or evolocumab on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that preventing one patient from MACE needed to treat 36 patients with ASCVD with PCSK9 inhibitors for 1.56 years. Both alirocumab and evolocumab reduced MACE, stroke, and coronary revascularization. Evolocumab had a positive effect on myocardial infarction, but no effects were noted for alirocumab. In addition, alirocumab may not be as effective as evolocumab. NNT visualizes the magnitude of efficacy to assist in clinical decisions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=344908], identifier [CRD42022344908].

The Use of Psychotropic Medication in Pediatric Oncology for Acute Psychological and Psychiatric Problems: Balancing Risks and Benefits

Severe acute behavioral and emotional problems represent one of the most serious treatment-related adverse effects for children and adolescents who have cancer. The critical and severe nature of these symptoms often makes necessary the use of psychotropic drugs. A working group composed of experts in multiple disciplines had the task of creating an agreement regarding a management plan for severe acute behavioral and emotional problems (SABEPs) in children and adolescents treated for cancer. To obtain global information on the use of psychotropic drugs in pediatric oncology, the working group first developed and mailed a 15-item questionnaire to many Italian pediatric oncology centers. Overall, an evident lack of knowledge and education regarding the use of psychotropic medications for the treatment of SABEPs was found. Thus, by referring to an adapted version of the Delphi method of consensus and standard methods for the elaboration of clinical questions (PICOs), the working group elaborated evidence-based recommendations for psychotropic drugs in the pediatric oncology setting. Furthermore, based on a thorough multivariate analysis of needs and difficulties, a comprehensive management flow was developed to optimize therapeutic interventions, which allows more accurate and efficient matching of the acute needs of patients while guiding treatment options.

Absolute treatment effects for the primary outcome and all-cause mortality in the cardiovascular outcome trials of new antidiabetic drugs: a meta-analysis of digitalized individual patient data

AIMS

Treatment effects from the large cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) of new antidiabetic drugs are almost exclusively communicated as hazard ratios, although reporting guidelines recommend to report treatment effects also on an absolute scale, e.g. as numbers needed to treat (NNT). We aimed to analyse NNTs in CVOTs comparing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to placebo.

METHODS

We digitalized individual time-to-event information for the primary outcome and all-cause mortality from 19 CVOTs that compared DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, or SGLT2 inhibitors to placebo. We estimated Weibull models for each trial and outcome and derived monthly NNTs. NNTs were summarized across all trials and within drug classes by random effects meta-analysis methods.

RESULTS

Treatment effects in the CVOTs appear smaller if they are reported as NNTs: Overall, 100 (95%-CI: 60, 303) patients have to be treated for 29 months (the median follow-up time across all trials) to avoid a single event of the primary outcome, and 128 (95%-CI: 85, 265) patients have to be treated for 39 months to avoid a single death. NNT time courses are very similar for GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, whereas treatment effects with DPP-4 inhibitors are smaller.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the respective treatment effects look less impressive when communicated on an absolute scale, as numbers needed to treat. For a valid overall picture of the benefit of new antidiabetic drugs, trial authors should also report treatment effects on an absolute scale.

Concept of the Number Needed to Treat for the Analysis of Pain Relief Outcomes in Patients Treated with Spinal Cord Stimulation

In the rapidly evolving field of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), measures of treatment effects are needed to help understand the benefits of new therapies. The present article elaborates the number needed to treat (NNT) concept and applies it to the SCS field. We reviewed the basic theory of the NNT, its calculation method, and its application to historical controlled trials of SCS. We searched the literature for controlled studies with ≥20 implanted SCS patients with chronic axial back and/or leg pain followed for ≥3 months and a reported responder rate defined as ≥50% pain relief. Relevant data necessary to estimate the NNT were extracted from the included articles. In total, 12 of 1616 records were eligible for inclusion. The records reported 10 clinical studies, including 7 randomized controlled trials, 2 randomized crossover trials, and 1 controlled cohort study. The studies investigated traditional SCS and more recently developed SCS modalities, including 10 kHz SCS. In conclusion, the NNT estimate may help SCS stakeholders better understand the effect size difference between compared treatments; however, interpretation of any NNT should take into account its full context. In addition, comparisons across trials of different therapies should be avoided since they are prone to interpretation biases.

Effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors on all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes: A meta-analysis focusing on the number needed to treat and minimal clinical effect

AIMS

To assess the effectiveness of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) separately to prevent all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and heart failure (HF) in patients with diabetes considering the number needed to treat (NNT) and minimal clinical effect (MCE).

METHODS

Data from 17 morbidity-mortality trials in patients with diabetes were used to calculate NNTs and evaluate MCE to prevent all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure.

RESULTS

A total of 17 trials involving 42,037 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years. ACEIs significantly reduced the risk of all-cause mortality, MI and HF; the corresponding mean NNTBs were 48, 62 and 78, respectively, but ARBs were only associated with a reduction in heart failure. The clinical significance assessment of the included trials indicated that most of the statistically significant trial results had no definitive clinical significance, and only some of them had possible clinical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with diabetes, ACEIs reduced all-cause mortality, MI and HF, whereas ARBs could only prevent HF. However, none of the results of these trials had clear clinical significance, and most had only possible clinical significance.