Serial Assessment of High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin and the Effect of Dapagliflozin in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: An Analysis of the DAPA-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Circulating high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hsTnT) predominantly reflects myocardial injury, and higher levels are associated with a higher risk of worsening heart failure and death in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Less is known about the prognostic significance of changes in hsTnT over time, the effects of dapagliflozin on clinical outcomes in relation to baseline hsTnT levels, and the effect of dapagliflozin on hsTnT levels. METHODS: DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of dapagliflozin (10 mg daily) in patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV symptoms and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% (median follow-up, 18.2 months). hsTnT (Roche Diagnostics) was measured at baseline in 3112 patients and at 1 year in 2506 patients. The primary end point was adjudicated worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death. Clinical end points were analyzed according to baseline hsTnT and change in hsTnT from baseline to 1 year. Comparative treatment effects on clinical end points with dapagliflozin versus placebo were assessed by baseline hsTnT. The effect of dapagliflozin on hsTnT was explored. RESULTS: Median baseline hsTnT concentration was 20.0 (25th-75th percentile, 13.7-30.2) ng/L. Over 1 year, 67.9% of patients had a ≥10% relative increase or decrease in hsTnT concentrations, and 43.5% had a ≥20% relative change. A stepwise gradient of higher risk for the primary end point was observed across increasing quartiles of baseline hsTnT concentration (adjusted hazard ratio Q4 versus Q1, 3.44 [95% CI, 2.46-4.82]). Relative and absolute increases in hsTnT over 1 year were associated with higher subsequent risk of the primary end point. The relative reduction in the primary end point with dapagliflozin was consistent across quartiles of baseline hsTnT (P-interaction=0.55), but patients in the top quartile tended to have the greatest absolute risk reduction (absolute risk difference, 7.5% [95% CI, 1.0%-14.0%]). Dapagliflozin tended to attenuate the increase in hsTnT over time compared with placebo (relative least squares mean reduction, -3% [-6% to 0%]; P=0.076). CONCLUSIONS: Higher baseline hsTnT and greater increase in hsTnT over 1 year are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Dapagliflozin consistently reduced the risk of the primary end point, irrespective of baseline hsTnT levels. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Numbers needed to treat or harm and likelihood of being helped versus harmed for fremanezumab in patients who had prior inadequate response to two to four classes of migraine preventive medications: A post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), and likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH) in a post hoc analysis of the phase 3b FOCUS trial. BACKGROUND: Fremanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), has demonstrated efficacy, tolerability, and safety in adults with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM), with documented previous inadequate response to two to four classes of migraine preventive medications. METHODS: In the 12-week double-blind period of the FOCUS study, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or matched monthly placebo. NNT was based on responder analysis, defined as ≥50% reduction in monthly average number of migraine days at 12 weeks. NNH was based on discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Among patients with CM (n = 509), response rates and discontinuation rates were 27% (45/169) and 0 for quarterly fremanezumab, 29% (50/173) and 2% (3/173) for monthly fremanezumab, and 8% (13/167) and <1% (1/167) for placebo, respectively. These results translated to NNTs of 5.3 and 4.7, NNHs of 1000 and 88, and LHHs of 188 and 19 for quarterly and monthly fremanezumab, respectively. Among patients with EM (n = 328), response rates were 47% (50/107) for quarterly fremanezumab, 43% (47/110) for monthly fremanezumab, and 10% (11/111) for placebo. Discontinuation rates were <1% (n = 1) in all three groups. These results translated to NNTs of 2.7 and 3.0, NNHs of 1000 and 1000, and LHHs of 368 and 328 for quarterly and monthly fremanezumab, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The NNT, NNH, and LHH for quarterly and monthly fremanezumab compare favorably with those for traditional oral preventive medications, including topiramate, valproate, and propranolol.

Reduction in Acute Limb Ischemia With Rivaroxaban Versus Placebo in Peripheral Artery Disease After Lower Extremity Revascularization: Insights From VOYAGER PAD.

BACKGROUND: Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are at heightened risk of acute limb ischemia (ALI), a thrombotic event associated with amputation, disability, and mortality. Previous lower extremity revascularization (LER) is associated with increased ALI risk in chronic PAD. However, the pattern of risk, clinical correlates, and outcomes after ALI early after LER are not well-studied, and effective therapies to reduce ALI post-LER are lacking. METHODS: The VOYAGER PAD trial (Vascular Outcomes Study of ASA [Acetylsalicylic Acid] Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for PAD; rNCT02504216) randomized patients with PAD undergoing LER to rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily or placebo on a background of low-dose aspirin. The primary outcome was a composite of ALI, major amputation of vascular cause, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death. ALI was prospectively ascertained and adjudicated by a blinded committee. The cumulative incidence of ALI was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to generate hazard ratios and associated CIs. Analyses were performed as intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Among 6564 patients followed for a median of 2.3 years, 382 (5.8%) had a total of 508 ALI events. In placebo patients, the 3-year cumulative incidence of ALI was 7.8%. After multivariable modeling, previous LER, baseline ankle-brachial index <0.50, surgical LER, and longer target lesion length were associated with increased risk of ALI. Incident ALI was associated with subsequent all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.59 [95% CI, 1.98-3.39]) and major amputation (HR, 24.87 [95% CI, 18.68-33.12]). Rivaroxaban reduced ALI relative to placebo by 33% (absolute risk reduction, 2.6% at 3 years; HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55-0.82]; P=0.0001), with benefit starting early (HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.24-0.85]; P=0.0068 at 30 days). Benefit was present for severe ALI (associated with death, amputation, or prolonged hospitalization and intensive care unit stay, HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.40-0.83]; P=0.003) and regardless of LER type (surgical versus endovascular revascularization, P interaction=0.42) or clopidogrel use (P interaction=0.59). CONCLUSIONS: After LER for symptomatic PAD, ALI is frequent, particularly early after LER, and is associated with poor prognosis. Low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduces ALI after LER, including ALI events associated with the most severe outcomes. The benefit of rivaroxaban for ALI appears early, continues over time, and is consistent regardless of revascularization approach or clopidogrel use.

Communicating Absolute Fracture Risk Reduction and the Acceptance of Treatment for Osteoporosis.

Healthcare professionals frequently communicate the benefits of treatments as a relative risk reduction (RRR) in the likelihood of an event occurring. Here we evaluated whether presenting the benefits of osteoporosis treatment as a RRR in fractures compared with an absolute risk reduction (ARR) changed the patient's attitudes towards accepting treatment. We surveyed 160 individuals attending a specialised osteoporosis clinic for face-to-face consultations between May 2018 and Jan 2021. They were presented with information on RRR for the treatment being considered followed by ARR and after each question were asked about how likely they would be to start treatment on a 5-point scale (1 = very likely, 5 = very unlikely). Participants were less likely to accept treatment when it was presented as ARR (mean score 2.02 vs. 2.67, p < 0.001, 95% CI for difference - 0.82 vs - 0.47) and thirty-eight participants (23.7%) declined treatment with knowledge of their ARR when they would have accepted the same treatment based on the RRR. Individuals who declined treatment had a lower 5-year risk of fracture than those who accepted treatment (9.0 vs. 12.5%, p < 0.001, 95% CI - 5.0 to - 1.6) and as fracture risk decreased, the participant was less likely to accept treatment (Spearman r - 0.32, 95% CI - 0.46 to - 0.17, p ≤ 0.001). Whilst presentation of data as ARR more accurately reflects individual benefit and helps facilitate shared decision-making, clinicians should be aware that this will lead to a proportion of patients with lower fracture risk declining treatment for osteoporosis.

Single-dose intravenous ketorolac for acute postoperative pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 20 April 2020. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized double-blind trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.  Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses of parenteral ketorolac separately and to analyze results based on the type of surgery performed. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies, involving 1905 participants undergoing various surgeries (pelvic/abdominal, dental, and orthopedic), with 17 to 83 participants receiving intravenous ketorolac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 22.5 years to 67.4 years. Most studies administered a dose of ketorolac of 30 mg; one study assessed 15 mg, and another administered 60 mg. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for some domains, particularly allocation concealment and blinding, and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall certainty of evidence for each outcome ranged from very low to moderate. Reasons for downgrading certainty included serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. Ketorolac versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence from eight studies (658 participants) suggests that ketorolac results in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 4.37). The number needed to treat for one additional participant to benefit (NNTB) was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7). Low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (914 participants) demonstrates that ketorolac may result in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours compared to placebo (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.51). The NNTB was 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.7). Among secondary outcomes, for time to rescue medication, moderate-certainty evidence comparing intravenous ketorolac versus placebo demonstrated a mean median of 271 minutes for ketorolac versus 104 minutes for placebo (6 studies, 633 participants). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from five studies (417 participants) compared ketorolac with placebo. The RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00), that is, it did not demonstrate a difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with placebo (74% versus 65%; 8 studies, 810 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from eight studies (703 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and placebo (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.03). Ketorolac versus NSAIDs  Ketorolac was compared to parecoxib in four studies and diclofenac in two studies. For our primary outcome, over both four and six hours there was no evidence of a difference between intravenous ketorolac and another NSAID (low-certainty and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Over four hours, four studies (337 participants) produced an RR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21) and over six hours, six studies (603 participants) produced an RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). For time to rescue medication, low-certainty evidence from four studies (427 participants) suggested that participants receiving ketorolac waited an extra 35 minutes (mean median 331 minutes versus 296 minutes). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from three studies (260 participants) compared ketorolac with another NSAID. The RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.40), that is, there may be little or no difference between groups.   Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with another NSAID (76% versus 68%, 5 studies, 516 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from five studies (530 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and another NSAID (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.99). Only one of the five studies reported a single serious AE. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The amount and certainty of evidence for the use of intravenous ketorolac as a treatment for postoperative pain varies across efficacy and safety outcomes and amongst comparators, from very low to moderate. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous ketorolac administration may offer substantial pain relief for most patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a slightly higher rate in comparison to placebo and to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous ketorolac has a different rate of gastrointestinal or surgical-site bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was a lack of studies in cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations who may be at increased risk for adverse events.

Responsiveness, minimal important difference, minimal relevant difference, and optimal number of patients for a study.

Several terms are used to describe changes in PROM scores in relation to treatments. Whether the change is small, large, or relevant is defined in different ways, yet these change scores are used to recommend or oppose treatments. They are also used to calculate the necessary number of patients for a study. This article offers a theoretical explanation behind the terms responsiveness, minimal important difference (MID), minimal important change (MIC), minimal relevant difference (MIREDIF), and threshold of clinical importance. It also gives instructions on how these and the optimal number of patients for a study are calculated. Responses to two domains of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), before and 1 year after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament of 164 patients, are used to illustrate the calculations. This paper presents the most common methods used to calculate and interpret MID. Results vary substantially across domains, patient location on the scale, and health conditions. The optimal number of patients depends on the minimal relevant difference (MIREDIF), the standard error of the measure (SEM), the desired statistical power for the measurement, and the responsiveness of the measurement instrument (the PROM). There is often uncertainty surrounding the calculation and interpretation of responsiveness, MID, and MIREDIF, as these concepts are complex. When MID is used to evaluate research results, authors should specify how the MID was calculated, and its relevance for the study population. These measures should only be used after thorough consideration to justify healthcare decisions.

Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects in an Analysis of Pooled Individual Patient Data From Randomized Trials of Device Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale After Stroke.

Importance: Patent foramen ovale (PFO)-associated strokes comprise approximately 10% of ischemic strokes in adults aged 18 to 60 years. While device closure decreases stroke recurrence risk overall, the best treatment for any individual is often unclear. Objective: To evaluate heterogeneity of treatment effect of PFO closure on stroke recurrence based on previously developed scoring systems. Design, Setting, and Participants: Investigators for the Systematic, Collaborative, PFO Closure Evaluation (SCOPE) Consortium pooled individual patient data from all 6 randomized clinical trials that compared PFO closure plus medical therapy vs medical therapy alone in patients with PFO-associated stroke, and included a total of 3740 participants. The trials were conducted worldwide from 2000 to 2017. Exposures: PFO closure plus medical therapy vs medical therapy alone. Subgroup analyses used the Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE) Score (a 10-point scoring system in which higher scores reflect younger age and the absence of vascular risk factors) and the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) Classification System, which combines the RoPE Score with high-risk PFO features (either an atrial septal aneurysm or a large-sized shunt) to classify patients into 3 categories of causal relatedness: unlikely, possible, and probable. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ischemic stroke. Results: Over a median follow-up of 57 months (IQR, 24-64), 121 outcomes occurred in 3740 patients. The annualized incidence of stroke with medical therapy was 1.09% (95% CI, 0.88%-1.36%) and with device closure was 0.47% (95% CI, 0.35%-0.65%) (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.41 [95% CI, 0.28-0.60]). The subgroup analyses showed statistically significant interaction effects. Patients with low vs high RoPE Score had HRs of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.37-1.00) and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.11-0.42), respectively (P for interaction = .02). Patients classified as unlikely, possible, and probable using the PASCAL Classification System had HRs of 1.14 (95% CI, 0.53-2.46), 0.38 (95% CI, 0.22-0.65), and 0.10 (95% CI, 0.03-0.35), respectively (P for interaction = .003). The 2-year absolute risk reduction was -0.7% (95% CI, -4.0% to 2.6%), 2.1% (95% CI, 0.6%-3.6%), and 2.1% (95% CI, 0.9%-3.4%) in the unlikely, possible, and probable PASCAL categories, respectively. Device-associated adverse events were generally higher among patients classified as unlikely; the absolute risk increases in atrial fibrillation beyond day 45 after randomization with a device were 4.41% (95% CI, 1.02% to 7.80%), 1.53% (95% CI, 0.33% to 2.72%), and 0.65% (95% CI, -0.41% to 1.71%) in the unlikely, possible, and probable PASCAL categories, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients aged 18 to 60 years with PFO-associated stroke, risk reduction for recurrent stroke with device closure varied across groups classified by their probabilities that the stroke was causally related to the PFO. Application of this classification system has the potential to guide individualized decision-making.

Association of Real-time Continuous Glucose Monitoring With Glycemic Control and Acute Metabolic Events Among Patients With Insulin-Treated Diabetes.

Importance: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is recommended for patients with type 1 diabetes; observational evidence for CGM in patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes is lacking. Objective: To estimate clinical outcomes of real-time CGM initiation. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory retrospective cohort study of changes in outcomes associated with real-time CGM initiation, estimated using a difference-in-differences analysis. A total of 41 753 participants with insulin-treated diabetes (5673 type 1; 36 080 type 2) receiving care from a Northern California integrated health care delivery system (2014-2019), being treated with insulin, self-monitoring their blood glucose levels, and having no prior CGM use were included. Exposures: Initiation vs noninitiation of real-time CGM (reference group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Ten end points measured during the 12 months before and 12 months after baseline: hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c); hypoglycemia (emergency department or hospital utilization); hyperglycemia (emergency department or hospital utilization); HbA1c levels lower than 7%, lower than 8%, and higher than 9%; 1 emergency department encounter or more for any reason; 1 hospitalization or more for any reason; and number of outpatient visits and telephone visits. Results: The real-time CGM initiators included 3806 patients (mean age, 42.4 years [SD, 19.9 years]; 51% female; 91% type 1, 9% type 2); the noninitiators included 37 947 patients (mean age, 63.4 years [SD, 13.4 years]; 49% female; 6% type 1, 94% type 2). The prebaseline mean HbA1c was lower among real-time CGM initiators than among noninitiators, but real-time CGM initiators had higher prebaseline rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Mean HbA1c declined among real-time CGM initiators from 8.17% to 7.76% and from 8.28% to 8.19% among noninitiators (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, -0.40%; 95% CI, -0.48% to -0.32%; P < .001). Hypoglycemia rates declined among real-time CGM initiators from 5.1% to 3.0% and increased among noninitiators from 1.9% to 2.3% (difference-in-differences estimate, -2.7%; 95% CI, -4.4% to -1.1%; P = .001). There were also statistically significant differences in the adjusted net changes in the proportion of patients with HbA1c lower than 7% (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, 9.6%; 95% CI, 7.1% to 12.2%; P < .001), lower than 8% (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, 13.1%; 95% CI, 10.2% to 16.1%; P < .001), and higher than 9% (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, -7.1%; 95% CI, -9.5% to -4.6%; P < .001) and in the number of outpatient visits (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.2; P < .001) and telephone visits (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.4; P < .001). Initiation of real-time CGM was not associated with statistically significant changes in rates of hyperglycemia, emergency department visits for any reason, or hospitalizations for any reason. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study, insulin-treated patients with diabetes selected by physicians for real-time continuous glucose monitoring compared with noninitiators had significant improvements in hemoglobin A1c and reductions in emergency department visits and hospitalizations for hypoglycemia, but no significant change in emergency department visits or hospitalizations for hyperglycemia or for any reason. Because of the observational study design, findings may have been susceptible to selection bias.

Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials.

Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the public. The absence of reported absolute risk reduction in COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials can lead to outcome reporting bias that affects the interpretation of vaccine efficacy. The present article uses clinical epidemiologic tools to critically appraise reports of efficacy in Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccine clinical trials. Based on data reported by the manufacturer for Pfzier/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2, this critical appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 95.1%; 95% CI, 90.0% to 97.6%; p = 0.016; absolute risk reduction, 0.7%; 95% CI, 0.59% to 0.83%; p < 0.000. For the Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273, the appraisal shows: relative risk reduction, 94.1%; 95% CI, 89.1% to 96.8%; p = 0.004; absolute risk reduction, 1.1%; 95% CI, 0.97% to 1.32%; p < 0.000. Unreported absolute risk reduction measures of 0.7% and 1.1% for the Pfzier/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, are very much lower than the reported relative risk reduction measures. Reporting absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy.

Number needed to treat with ursodeoxycholic acid therapy to prevent liver transplantation or death in primary biliary cholangitis.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical benefit of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) has never been reported in absolute measures. The aim of this study was to assess the number needed to treat (NNT) with UDCA to prevent liver transplantation (LT) or death among patients with PBC. METHODS: The NNT was calculated based on the untreated LT-free survival and HR of UDCA with respect to LT or death as derived from inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted Cox proportional hazard analyses within the Global PBC Study Group database. RESULTS: We included 3902 patients with a median follow-up of 7.8 (4.1-12.1) years. The overall HR of UDCA was 0.46 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.52) and the 5-year LT-free survival without UDCA was 81% (95% CI 79 to 82). The NNT to prevent one LT or death within 5 years (NNT5y) was 11 (95% CI 9 to 13). Although the HR of UDCA was similar for patients with and without cirrhosis (0.33 vs 0.31), the NNT5y was 4 (95% CI 3 to 5) and 20 (95% CI 14 to 34), respectively. Among patients with low alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (≤2× the upper limit of normal (ULN)), intermediate ALP (2-4× ULN) and high ALP (>4× ULN), the NNT5y to prevent one LT or death was 26 (95% CI 15 to 70), 11 (95% CI 8 to 17) and 5 (95% CI 4 to 8), respectively. CONCLUSION: The absolute clinical efficacy of UDCA with respect to LT or death varied with baseline prognostic characteristics, but was high throughout. These findings strongly emphasise the incentive to promptly initiate UDCA treatment in all patients with PBC and may improve patient compliance.

Considering adjuvant therapy for stage II melanoma.

Melanoma is among the few cancers that demonstrate an increasing incidence over time. Simultaneously, this trend has been marked by an epidemiologic shift to earlier stage at diagnosis. Before 2011, treatment options were limited for patients with metastatic disease, and the median overall survival was less than 1 year. Since then, the field of melanoma therapeutics has undergone major changes. The use of anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitors and combination BRAF/MEK inhibitors for patients with BRAF V600 mutations has significantly extended survival and allowed some patients to remain in durable disease remission off therapy. It has now been confirmed that these classes of agents have a benefit for patients with stage III melanoma after surgical resection, and anti-PD1 and BRAF/MEK inhibitors are standards of care in this setting. Some patients with stage II disease (lymph node-negative; American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IIB and IIC) have worse melanoma-specific survival relative to some patients with stage III disease. Given these results, expanding the population of patients who are considered for adjuvant therapy to include those with stage II melanoma has become a priority, and randomized phase 3 clinical trials are underway. Moving into the future, the validation of patient risk-stratification and treatment-benefit prediction models will be important to improve the number needed to treat and limit exposure to toxicity in the large population of patients with early stage melanoma.

Computing and interpreting the Number Needed to Treat for Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials : Perspective on GLP-1 RA and SGLT-2i therapies.

The recent results of Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials (CVOTs) in type 2 diabetes have clearly established the cardiovascular (CV) safety or even the benefit of two therapeutic classes, Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i). Publication of the latest CVOTs for these therapeutic classes also led to an update of ESC guidelines and ADA/EASD consensus report in 2019, which considers using GLP-1 RA or SGLT-2i with proven cardiovascular benefit early in the management of type 2 diabetic patient with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or at high risk of atherosclerotic CVD. The main beneficial results of these time-to event studies are supported by conventional statistical measures attesting the effectiveness of GLP-1 RA or SGLT2i on cardiovascular events (absolute risk, absolute risk difference, relative risk, relative risk reduction, odds ratio, hazard ratio). In addition, another measure whose clinical meaning appears to be easier, the Number Needed to Treat (NNT), is often mentioned while discussing the results of CVOTs, in order to estimating the clinical utility of each drug or sometimes trying to establish a power ranking. While the value of the measure is admittedly of interest, the subtleties of its computation in time-to-event studies are little known. We provide in this article a clear and practical explanation on NNT computation methods that should be used in order to estimate its value, according to the type of study design and variables available to describe the event of interest, in any randomized controlled trial. More specifically, a focus is made on time-to-event studies of which CVOTs are part, first to describe in detail an appropriate and adjusted method of NNT computation and second to help properly interpreting NNTs with the example of CVOTs conducted with GLP-1 RA and SGLT-2i. We particularly discuss the risk of misunderstanding of NNT values in CVOTs when some specific parameters inherent in each study are not taken into account, and the following risk of erroneous comparison between NNTs across studies. The present paper highlights the importance of understanding rightfully NNTs from CVOTs and their clinical impact to get the full picture of a drug's effectiveness.

MAVRIC: a multicenter randomized controlled trial of transabdominal vs transvaginal cervical cerclage.

BACKGROUND: Vaginal cerclage (a suture around the cervix) commonly is placed in women with recurrent pregnancy loss. These women may experience late miscarriage or extreme preterm delivery, despite being treated with cerclage. Transabdominal cerclage has been advocated after failed cerclage, although its efficacy is unproved by randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare transabdominal cerclage or high vaginal cerclage with low vaginal cerclage in women with a history of failed cerclage. Our primary outcome was delivery at <32 completed weeks of pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Women were assigned randomly (1:1:1) to receive transabdominal cerclage, high vaginal cerclage, or low vaginal cerclage either before conception or at <14 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: The data for 111 of 139 women who were recruited and who conceived were analyzed: 39 had transabdominal cerclage; 39 had high vaginal cerclage, and 33 had low vaginal cerclage. Rates of preterm birth at <32 weeks of gestation were significantly lower in women who received transabdominal cerclage compared with low vaginal cerclage (8% [3/39] vs 33% [11/33]; relative risk, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.76; P=.0157). The number needed to treat to prevent 1 preterm birth was 3.9 (95% confidence interval, 2.32-12.1). There was no difference in preterm birth rates between high and low vaginal cerclage (38% [15/39] vs 33% [11/33]; relative risk, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.16; P=.81). No neonatal deaths occurred. In an exploratory analysis, women with transabdominal cerclage had fewer fetal losses compared with low vaginal cerclage (3% [1/39] vs 21% [7/33]; relative risk, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.016-0.93; P=.02). The number needed to treat to prevent 1 fetal loss was 5.3 (95% confidence interval, 2.9-26). CONCLUSION: Transabdominal cerclage is the treatment of choice for women with failed vaginal cerclage. It is superior to low vaginal cerclage in the reduction of risk of early preterm birth and fetal loss in women with previous failed vaginal cerclage. High vaginal cerclage does not confer this benefit. The numbers needed to treat are sufficiently low to justify transabdominal surgery and cesarean delivery required in this select cohort.

Zonisamide add-on therapy for focal epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: The majority of people with epilepsy have a good prognosis, and their seizures can be well controlled with the use of a single antiepileptic agent, but up to 30% develop dug-resistant epilepsy, especially those with focal seizures. In this review, we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCT) of zonisamide, used as an add-on treatment for focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drug. This is an updated version of the Cochrane review previously published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of zonisamide, when used as an add-on treatment for people with focal epilepsy uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs. SEARCH METHODS: For the latest update, we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE Ovid (September 2019). In addition, we contacted Eisai Limited (makers and licensees of zonisamide) and experts in the field, to seek any ongoing or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, in which add-on zonisamide was compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug in people with focal epilepsy, uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and assessed the certainty of the evidence, using the GRADE approach. The primary outcome was at least a 50% reduction in total seizure frequency; the secondary outcomes were (1) tolerability; and (2) adverse effects. We used an intention-to-treat approach for our primary analyses. We estimated summary risk ratios (RRs) for each outcome. We displayed a summary of the estimates of effects and certainty of the evidence for each outcome in a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any new studies since the last version of this review. We included eight studies (1636 participants) from previous versions of this review. The overall RR with 95% confidence interval (CI) for at least a 50% reduction in seizure frequency for 300 mg to 500 mg/day of zonisamide compared to placebo was 1.90 (95% CI 1.63 to 2.22; 7 trials, 1371 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The RR for 50% reduction in seizure frequency compared to placebo for any dose of zonisamide (100 mg to 500 mg/day) was 1.86 (95% CI 1.60 to 2.17; 7 trials, 1429 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was six (95% CI 4.1 to 6.8). Two trials provided evidence of a dose-response relationship for this outcome. The RR for treatment withdrawal for 300 mg to 500 mg/day of zonisamide compared to placebo was 1.59 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.13; 6 trials, 1099 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and for 100 mg to 500 mg/day was 1.44 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.93; 6 trials, 1156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 15 (95% CI 9.3 to 36.7). The following adverse effects were more likely to be associated with zonisamide than with placebo: ataxia (RR 3.85, 99% CI 1.36 to 10.93; 4 trials, 734 participants; low-certainty evidence); somnolence (RR 1.52, 99% CI 1.00 to 2.31; 8 trials, 1636 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); agitation (RR 2.35, 99% CI 1.05 to 5.27; 4 trials, 598 participants; low-certainty evidence); and anorexia (RR 2.74, 99% CI 1.64 to 4.60; 6 trials, 1181 participants; low-certainty evidence). Across the eight studies, we rated risk of bias domains at low or unclear risk of bias, apart from two studies, which we rated at high risk of attrition bias. Five of the eight studies were sponsored by the drug companies that produced zonisamide. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When used as an add-on treatment in people with focal epilepsy, uncontrolled by one or more concomitant antiepileptic drugs, moderate-certainty evidence found that zonisamide was more successful than placebo at reducing the frequency of seizures by at least 50%. We were unable to identify minimum effective and maximum tolerated doses. The included trials evaluated a maximum stable-dose phase of 18 weeks, so results cannot be used to confirm longer periods of efficacy in seizure control. The results cannot be extrapolated to monotherapy, or to people with other seizure types or epilepsy syndromes.

Blood pressure targets in adults with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: This is the first update of this review first published in 2009. When treating elevated blood pressure, doctors usually try to achieve a blood pressure target. That target is the blood pressure value below which the optimal clinical benefit is supposedly obtained. "The lower the better" approach that guided the treatment of elevated blood pressure for many years was challenged during the last decade due to lack of evidence from randomised trials supporting that strategy. For that reason, the standard blood pressure target in clinical practice during the last years has been less than 140/90 mm Hg for the general population of patients with elevated blood pressure. However, new trials published in recent years have reintroduced the idea of trying to achieve lower blood pressure targets. Therefore, it is important to know whether the benefits outweigh harms when attempting to achieve targets lower than the standard target. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine if lower blood pressure targets (any target less than or equal to 135/85 mm Hg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with standard blood pressure targets (less than or equal to 140/ 90 mm Hg) for the treatment of patients with chronic arterial hypertension. The secondary objectives were: to determine if there is a change in mean achieved systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP associated with "lower targets" as compared with "standard targets" in patients with chronic arterial hypertension; and to determine if there is a change in withdrawals due to adverse events with "lower targets" as compared with "standard targets", in patients with elevated blood pressure. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to May 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2019, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients allocated to lower or to standard blood pressure targets (see above). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (JAA, VL) independently assessed the included trials and extracted data. Primary outcomes were total mortality; total serious adverse events; myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, end stage renal disease, and other serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were achieved mean SBP and DBP, withdrawals due to adverse effects, and mean number of antihypertensive drugs used. We assessed the risk of bias of each trial using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 11 RCTs involving 38,688 participants with a mean follow-up of 3.7 years. This represents 7 new RCTs compared with the original version. At baseline the mean weighted age was 63.1 years and the mean weighted blood pressure was 155/91 mm Hg. Lower targets do not reduce total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.05; 11 trials, 38,688 participants; high-certainty evidence) and do not reduce total serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.08; 6 trials, 18,165 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that the benefits of lower targets do not outweigh the harms as compared to standard blood pressure targets. Lower targets may reduce myocardial infarction (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96; 6 trials, 18,938 participants, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.4%, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 250 over 3.7 years) and congestive heart failure (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.92; 5 trials, 15,859 participants, ARR 0.6%, NNTB  167 over 3.7 years) (low-certainty for both outcomes). Reduction in myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure was not reflected in total serious adverse events. This may be due to an increase in other serious adverse events (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.59; 6 trials. 18,938 participants, absolute risk increase (ARI) 3%,  number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 33 over four years) (low-certainty evidence). Participants assigned to a "lower" target received one additional antihypertensive medication and achieved a significantly lower mean SBP (122.8 mm Hg versus 135.0 mm Hg, and a lower mean DBP (82.0 mm Hg versus 85.2 mm Hg, than those assigned to "standard target". AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the general population of persons with elevated blood pressure, the benefits of trying to achieve a lower blood pressure target rather than a standard target (≤ 140/90 mm Hg) do not outweigh the harms associated with that intervention. Further research is needed to see if some groups of patients would benefit or be harmed by lower targets. The results of this review are primarily applicable to older people with moderate to high cardiovascular risk. They may not be applicable to other populations.

Probiotics for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with ulcerative colitis can be put into remission, leaving a group who do not respond to first- or second-line therapies. There is a significant proportion of people who experience adverse effects with current therapies. Consequently, new alternatives for the treatment of ulcerative colitis are constantly being sought. Probiotics are live microbial feed supplements that may beneficially affect the host by improving intestinal microbial balance, enhancing gut barrier function and improving local immune response. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of probiotics compared with placebo or standard medical treatment (5-aminosalicylates, sulphasalazine or corticosteroids) for the induction of remission in people with active ulcerative colitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 31 October 2019. We contacted authors of relevant studies and manufacturers of probiotics regarding ongoing or unpublished trials that may be relevant to the review, and we searched ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched references of trials for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of probiotics compared to standard treatments or placebo in the induction of remission of active ulcerative colitis. We considered both adults and children, with studies reporting outcomes of clinical, endoscopic, histologic or surgical remission as defined by study authors DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager 5. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: In this review, we included 14 studies (865 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of the studies looked at adult participants and two studies looked at paediatric participants with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis, the average age was between 12.5 and 47.7 years. The studies compared probiotics to placebo, probiotics to 5-ASA and a combination of probiotics plus 5-ASA compared to 5-ASA alone. Seven studies used a single probiotic strain and seven used a mixture of strains. The studies ranged from two weeks to 52 weeks. The risk of bias was high for all except two studies due to allocation concealment, blinding of participants, incomplete reports of outcome data and selective reporting. This led to GRADE ratings of the evidence ranging from moderate to very low. Probiotics versus placebo Probiotics may induce clinical remission when compared to placebo (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.54; 9 studies, 594 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to imprecision and risk of bias, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5). Probiotics may lead to an improvement in clinical disease scores (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.63; 2 studies, 54 participants; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.59; 7 studies, 520 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal bloating and discomfort. Probiotics did not lead to any serious adverse events in any of the seven studies that reported on it, however five adverse events were reported in the placebo arm of one study (RR 0.09, CI 0.01 to 1.66; 1 study, 526 participants; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to high risk of bias and imprecision). Probiotics may make little or no difference to withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.72; 4 studies, 401 participants; low-certainty evidence). Probiotics versus 5-ASA There may be little or no difference in the induction of remission with probiotics when compared to 5-ASA (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.16; 1 study, 116 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.33; 1 study, 116 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal pain, nausea, headache and mouth ulcers. There were no serious adverse events with probiotics, however perforated sigmoid diverticulum and respiratory failure in a patient with severe emphysema were reported in the 5-ASA arm (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; 1 study, 116 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Probiotics combined with 5-ASA versus 5-ASA alone Low-certainty evidence from a single study shows that when combined with 5-ASA, probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission (based on the Sunderland disease activity index) compared to 5-ASA alone (RR 1.22 CI 1.01 to 1.47; 1 study, 84 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to unclear risk of bias and imprecision). No information about adverse events was reported. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes (progression to surgery, need for additional therapy, quality of life scores, or steroid withdrawal) were reported in any of the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence suggests that probiotics may induce clinical remission in active ulcerative colitis when compared to placebo. There may be little or no difference in clinical remission with probiotics alone compared to 5-ASA. There is limited evidence from a single study which failed to provide a definition of remission, that probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission when used in combination with 5-ASA. There was no evidence to assess whether probiotics are effective in people with severe and more extensive disease, or if specific preparations are superior to others. Further targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies and the use of standardised participant groups and outcome measures in line with the wider field are needed, as well as reporting to minimise risk of bias.

Anti-cytokine targeted therapies for ANCA-associated vasculitis.

BACKGROUND: Anti-neutrophilic cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) are a group of rare auto-inflammatory diseases that affects mainly small vessels. AAV includes: granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA). Anti-cytokine targeted therapy uses biological agents capable of specifically targeting and neutralising cytokine mediators of the inflammatory response. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of anti-cytokine targeted therapy for adults with AAV. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2019, Issue 7), MEDLINE and Embase up to 16 August 2019. We also examined reference lists of articles, clinical trial registries, websites of regulatory agencies and contacted manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials of targeted anti-cytokine therapy in adults (18 years or older) with AAV compared with placebo, standard therapy or another modality and anti-cytokine therapy of different type or dose. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with a total of 440 participants (mean age 48 to 56 years). We analysed the studies in three groups: 1) mepolizumab (300 mg; three separate injections every four weeks for 52 weeks) versus placebo in participants with relapsing or refractory EGPA; 2) belimumab (10 mg/kg on days 0, 14, 28 and every 28 days thereafter until 12 months after the last participant was randomised) or etanercept (25 mg twice a week) with standard therapy (median 25 months) versus placebo with standard therapy (median 19 months) in participants with GPA/MPA; and 3) infliximab (3 mg/kg on days 1 and 14, before the response assessment on day 42) versus rituximab (0.375g/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 and 22) in participants with refractory GPA for up to 12 months. None of the studies were assessed as low risk of bias in all domains: one study did not report randomisation or blinding methods clearly. Three studies were at high risk and one study was at unclear risk of bias for selective outcome reporting. One trial with 136 participants with relapsing or refractory EGPA compared mepolizumab with placebo during 52 weeks of follow-up and observed one death in the mepolizumab group (1/68, 1.5%) and none in the placebo group (0/68, 0%) (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 372.38; low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence suggests that more participants in the mepolizumab group had ≥ 24 weeks of accrued remission over 52 weeks compared to placebo (27.9% versus 2.9%; risk ratio (RR) 9.5, 95% CI 2.30 to 39.21), and durable remission within the first 24 weeks sustained until week 52 (19.1% mepolizumab versus 1.5% placebo; RR 13.0, 95% CI 1.75 to 96.63; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6, 95% Cl 4 to 13). Mepolizumab probably decreases risk of relapse (55.8% versus 82.4%; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.86; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 9; moderate-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence regarding similar frequency of adverse events (AEs): total AEs (96.9% versus 94.1%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11), serious AEs (17.7% versus 26.5%; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.28) and withdrawals due to AEs (2.9% versus 1.5%; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.54). Disease flares were not measured. Based on two trials with different follow-up periods (mean of 27 months for etanercept study; up to four years for belimumab study) including people with GPA (n = 263) and a small group of participants with MPA (n = 22) analysed together, we found low-certainty evidence suggesting that adding an active drug (etanercept or belimumab) to standard therapy does not increase or reduce mortality (3.4% versus 1.4%; Peto OR 2.45, 95% CI 0.55 to 10.97). Etanercept may have little or no effect on remission (92.3% versus 89.5%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.07), durable remission (70% versus 75.3%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; low-certainty evidence) and disease flares (56% versus 57.1%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.27; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence suggests that belimumab does not increase or reduce major relapse (1.9% versus 0%; RR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 70.67) or any AE (92.5% versus 82.7%; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.29). Low-certainty evidence suggests a similar frequency of serious or severe AEs (47.6% versus 47.6%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27), but more frequent withdrawals due to AEs in the active drug group (11.2%) compared to the placebo group (4.2%), RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.07 to 6.59). One trial involving 17 participants with refractory GPA compared infliximab versus rituximab added to steroids and cytotoxic agents for 12 months. One participant died in each group (Peto OR 0.88, 95% CI, 0.05 to 15.51; 11% versus 12.5%). We have very low-certainty evidence for remission (22% versus 50%, RR 0.44, 95% Cl 0.11 to 1.81) and durable remission (11% versus 50%, RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.60), any severe AE (22.3% versus 12.5%; RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.2 to 16.1) and withdrawals due to AEs (0% versus 0%; RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.13 to 58.24). Disease flare/relapse and the frequency of any AE were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found four studies but concerns about risk of bias and small sample sizes preclude firm conclusions. We found moderate-certainty evidence that in patients with relapsing or refractory EGPA, mepolizumab compared to placebo probably decreases disease relapse and low-certainty evidence that mepolizumab may increase the probability of accruing at least 24 weeks of disease remission. There were similar frequencies of total and serious AEs in both groups, but the study was too small to reliably assess these outcomes. Mepolizumab may result in little to no difference in mortality. However, there were very few events. In participants with GPA (and a small subgroup of participants with MPA), etanercept or belimumab may increase the probability of withdrawal due to AEs and may have little to no impact on serious AEs. Etanercept may have little or no impact on durable remission and probably does not reduce disease flare.

Enteral lactoferrin supplementation for prevention of sepsis and necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Lactoferrin, a normal component of human colostrum and milk, can enhance host defenses and may be effective for prevention of sepsis and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm neonates. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and effectiveness of lactoferrin supplementation to enteral feeds for prevention of sepsis and NEC in preterm neonates. Secondarily, we assessed the effects of lactoferrin supplementation to enteral feeds on the duration of positive-pressure ventilation, development of chronic lung disease (CLD) or periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), length of hospital stay to discharge among survivors, and adverse neurological outcomes at two years of age or later. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to update our search. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2019, Issue 9), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 20 January 2020), PREMEDLINE (1996 to 20 January 2020), Embase (1980 to 20 January 2020), and CINAHL (1982 to 20 January 2020). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: In our search, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating enteral lactoferrin supplementation at any dose or duration to prevent sepsis or NEC in preterm neonates. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Meta-analysis of data from twelve randomized controlled trials showed that lactoferrin supplementation to enteral feeds decreased late-onset sepsis (typical RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; typical RD -0.04, 95% CI, -0.06, -0.02; NNTB 25, 95% CI 17 to 50; 12 studies, 5425 participants, low-certainty evidence) and decreased length of hospital stay (MD -2.38, 95% CI, -4.67, -0.09; 3 studies, 1079 participants, low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis including only good methodological certainty studies suggested a decrease in late-onset sepsis with enteral lactoferrin supplementation (typical RR 0.87, 95% CI, 0.78, 0.97; typical RD -0.03, 95% CI, -0.05, -0.0; 9 studies, 4702 participants, low-certainty evidence). There were no differences in NEC stage II or III (typical RR 1.10, 95% CI, 0.86, 1.41; typical RD -0.00, 95% CI, -0.02, 0.01; 7 studies, 4874 participants; low-certainty evidence) or 'all-cause mortality' (typical RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69, 1.17; typical RD -0.00, 95% CI, -0.01, 0.01; 11 studies, 5510 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One study reported no differences in neurodevelopmental testing by Mullen's or Bayley III at 24 months of age after enteral lactoferrin supplementation (one study, 292 participants, low-certainty evidence). Lactoferrin supplementation to enteral feeds with probiotics decreased late-onset sepsis (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.46; RD -0.13, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.08; NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 13; 3 studies, 564 participants; low-certainty evidence) and NEC stage II or III (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.62; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.03; NNTB 20, 95% CI 12.5 to 33.3; 1 study, 496 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but not 'all-cause mortality' (very low-certainty evidence). Lactoferrin supplementation to enteral feeds with or without probiotics had no effect on CLD, duration of mechanical ventilation or threshold retinopathy of prematurity (low-certainty evidence). Investigators reported no adverse effects in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty evidence from studies of good methodological quality that lactoferrin supplementation of enteral feeds decreases late-onset sepsis but not NEC ≥ stage II or 'all cause mortality' or neurodevelopmental outcomes at 24 months of age in preterm infants without adverse effects. Low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests that lactoferrin supplementation of enteral feeds in combination with probiotics decreases late-onset sepsis and NEC ≥ stage II in preterm infants without adverse effects, however, there were few included studies of poor methodological quality. The presence of publication bias and small studies of poor methodology that may inflate the effect size make recommendations for clinical practice difficult.

Number of Adenomas Removed and Colorectal Cancers Prevented in Randomized Trials of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) with sigmoidoscopy reduces CRC incidence by detecting and removing adenomas. The number needed to screen is a measure of screening efficiency, but is not directly associated with adenoma removal. We propose the following 2 new metrics for quantifying the relationship between adenoma removal and CRC prevented: number of adenomas needed to remove (NNR) and adenoma dwell time avoided (DTA). METHODS: We collected data from 4 randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening (1 in the United States and 3 in Europe) to assess NNR and DTA. For each trial, NNR was computed as the number of adenomas removed from subjects in the intervention group, divided by the number of CRCs prevented. DTA was computed similarly but taking into account the timing of adenoma removal. Combined results across trials were assessed using standard meta-analytic techniques. RESULTS: The estimated NNR for the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian) trial was 74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 56-110), for the NORCCAP (Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention) trial was 71 (95% CI, 44-174), for the SCORE (Screening for Colon Rectum) trial was 27 (95% CI, 14-135), and for the UKFSST (UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial) was 36 (95% CI, 28-52). The combined estimate (meta-analysis) of NNR was 52 (95% CI, 36-93) assuming heterogeneity (P for heterogeneity = .014). DTA estimates among trials ranged from 278 to 730 years, with a combined estimate of 500 (95% CI, 344-833) years assuming heterogeneity (P for heterogeneity = .035), or 2 CRC cases prevented per 1000 adenoma dwell years avoided. The combined estimates of NNR and DTA restricted to advanced adenomas were 13 (95% CI, 9-22) and 122 (95% CI, 90-190) years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We collected data from 4 randomized trials of sigmoidoscopy screening for CRC to develop metrics of endoscopic efficiency, NNR and DTA, which are directly linked to adenoma detection and removal. They can be used to compare screening among endoscopic modalities and to more precisely measure adenoma to carcinoma transition rates.

Number (of Whom?) Needed to Treat (with What?): Exposures, Population Interventions, and the Number Needed to Treat.

The number needed to treat (NNT) is a widely used measure of the potential impact of a treatment or intervention, but it is often calculated and discussed in ways which oversimplify critical issues. Specifically, the NNT itself depends on the population under study and the specific form that "treatment" would take in that population. We discuss how understanding the difference between the effect of removing a harmful exposure and the effect of deploying a specific intervention to remove that harmful exposure can affect the calculation and interpretation of an NNT. Our discussion extends a previously described framework distinguishing exposure effects from population intervention effects.