Number needed to treat in indirect treatment comparison

The Role of Adjuvant Chemotherapy before Osimertinib in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutant Resected Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Communicating It to Patients

Patients with radically resected stage II and III NSCLC are exposed to a high risk of disease recurrence. Thus, adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy is routinely offered to this patient population, although it results in an absolute increase in 5-year survival rate of only 4%. This modest improvement in survival rate makes it challenging to communicate to our patients about the decision to be treated with adjuvant chemotherapy or not. Nowadays, the decision to administer adjuvant chemotherapy or not in resected NSCLC is almost never completely shared with patients because its role is very difficult to explain. The risk-benefit ratio becomes clearly unfavourable in elderly and unfit patients. Recently, the phase III ADAURA trial demonstrated a clinically significant disease-free survival and overall survival benefit with adjuvant osimertinib (with or without adjuvant chemotherapy) versus a placebo in EGFR-mutated stage IB-IIIA resected NSCLC. In this patient population, the decision to administer chemotherapy or not is much more challenging given the great benefit offered by osimertinib alone. Thus, it is time now to improve our communication tools to explain the role of adjuvant chemotherapy to our patients, especially in the EGFR-mutated population, in order to undertake real shared decision making in a clinical context in which the opportunity to administer toxic chemotherapy is debatable and subjective.

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.

Effects of Metoprolol on Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (Type 4a MI): An Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Analysis

Background: Metoprolol is the most used cardiac selective β-blocker and has been recommended as a mainstay drug in the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, the evidence supporting this regimen in periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) is limited.

Methods: This study identified 860 individuals who suffered PMI following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedure and median followed up for 3.2 years. Subjects were dichotomized according to whether they received chronic oral sustained-release metoprolol succinate following PMI. After inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjustment, logistic regression analysis, Kaplan-Meier curve, and Cox regression analysis were performed to estimate the effects of metoprolol on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) which composed of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and revascularization. Moreover, an exploratory analysis was performed according to hypertension, cardiac troponin I (cTnI) elevation, and cardiac function. A double robust adjustment was used for sensitivity analysis.

Results: Among enrolled PMI subjects, 456 (53%) patients received metoprolol treatment and 404 (47%) patients received observation. After IPTW adjustment, receiving metoprolol was found to reduce the subsequent 3-year risk of MACEs by nearly 7.1% [15 vs. 22.1%, absolute risk difference (ARD) = 0.07, number needed to treat (NNT) = 14, relative risk (RR) = 0.682]. In IPTW-adjusted Cox regression analyses, receiving metoprolol was related to a reduced risk of MACEs (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.588, 95%CI [0.385–0.898], P = 0.014) and revascularization (HR = 0.538, 95%CI [0.326–0.89], P = 0.016). Additionally, IPTW-adjusted logistic regression analysis showed that receiving metoprolol reduced the risk of MI at the third year (odds ratio [OR] = 0.972, 95% CI [0.948–997], P = 0.029). Exploratory analysis showed that the protective effect of metoprolol was more pronounced in subgroups of hypertension and cTnI elevation ≥1,000%, and was remained in patients without cardiac dysfunction. The benefits above were consistent when double robust adjustments were performed.

Conclusion: In the real-world setting, receiving metoprolol treatment following PCI-related PMI has decreased the subsequent risk of MACEs, particularly the risk of recurrent MI and revascularization.