Understanding The Number Needed to Treat.

The number needed to treat (NNT) is the inverse of the absolute risk difference, which is used as a secondary outcome to clinical trials as a measure relevant to a positive trial, supplementing statistical significance. The NNT requires dichotomous outcomes and is influenced by the baseline disease or symptom severity, the particular population, the type and intensity of the interventional, the duration of treatment, the time period to assessment of response, and the comparator response. Confidence intervals should always accompany NNT for the precision of its estimate. In this review, three meta-analyses are reviewed, which included the NNT in the analysis of response.

Benefits and Risks of Antihyperlipidemic Medication in Adults with Different Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Based on the Number Needed to Treat.

PURPOSE: The objective of this investigation is to examine the benefits and potential risks of these drugs in individuals by varying baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) values, utilizing the concept of the number needed to treat (NNT). METHODS: We extensively searched electronic databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science, up to 6 August 2023. Baseline LDL-C values were stratified into four categories: < 100, 100-129, 130-159, and ≥ 160 mg/dL. Risk ratios (RRs) and NNT values were computed. RESULTS: This analysis incorporated data from 46 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), encompassing a total of 237,870 participants. The meta-regression analysis demonstrated an incremental diminishing risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with increasing baseline LDL-C values. Statins exhibited a significant reduction in MACE [number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 25-37], but this effect was observed only in individuals with baseline LDL-C values of 100 mg/dL or higher. Ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors also were effective in reducing MACE (NNTB 18, 95% CI 11-41, and NNTB 18, 95% CI 16-24). Notably, the safety outcomes of statins and ezetimibe did not reach statistical significance, while the incidence of injection-site reactions with PCSK9 inhibitors was statistically significant [number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 41, 95% CI 80-26]. CONCLUSION: Statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 inhibitors demonstrated a substantial capacity to reduce MACE, particularly among individuals whose baseline LDL-C values were relatively higher. The NNT visually demonstrates the gradient between baseline LDL-C and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Registration: PROSPERO identifier number: CRD42023458630.

Daridorexant for patients with chronic insomnia disorder: number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed.

OBJECTIVES: Appraise the evidence for daridorexant 50 mg and 25 mg versus placebo when treating chronic insomnia disorder in terms of number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), and likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH). METHODS: NNT, NNH, and LHH were calculated from a 3-month pivotal Phase 3 study (N = 930; randomized 1:1:1 to daridorexant 50 mg, daridorexant 25 mg, or placebo once nightly). Wakefulness after sleep onset, latency to persistent sleep, self-reported total sleep time, Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ), and Insomnia Severity Index were used for the NNT efficacy analysis. NNH safety analysis was performed using rates of adverse events (AEs) occurring in >1% of the participants in any arm. LHH was assessed for all NNT estimates, contrasting them with NNH estimates for somnolence, headache, and fatigue AEs. RESULTS: NNT estimates for daridorexant 50 mg versus placebo were <10 for clinically meaningful thresholds across all outcomes. NNT estimates for daridorexant 25 mg versus placebo were not as robust as those observed for daridorexant 50 mg, with many values exceeding 10. NNH estimates for daridorexant 50 mg and 25 mg versus placebo did not show a statistically significant treatment difference except for falls, where NNH was negative for the daridorexant 50 mg group (-44 [95% CI -328; -21]; rate of falls was greater with placebo than for daridorexant 50 mg). All LHH ratios at Months 1 and 3 were >1 (except for daridorexant 25 mg for the IDSIQ alert/cognition domain), indicating that patients were more likely to respond to daridorexant 50 mg and 25 mg than to experience an AE of somnolence, headache, or fatigue. CONCLUSION: Daridorexant 50 mg and 25 mg have a favorable benefit-risk ratio over 3 months. Daridorexant 50 mg demonstrated more robust (lower) NNT estimates versus placebo than daridorexant 25 mg.

Daridorexant, a dual orexin receptor antagonist, is a new treatment for chronic insomnia disorder. This analysis examined the effect and safety of daridorexant 50 and 25 mg, using data from a 3-month Phase 3 study (NCT03545191) to measure 'number needed to treat' (NNT) and 'number needed to harm' (NNH).NNT estimates how many patients need to be treated over a specific period to see one more beneficial response. Estimates versus placebo <10 indicate an effective treatment. Daridorexant 50 mg estimates were <10 for all objective and subjective measurements of insomnia assessed in this analysis, including evaluation of daytime functioning. NNT estimates for daridorexant 25 mg versus placebo were not as robust as daridorexant 50 mg, with values >10.NNH is calculated in the same way as NNT but estimates harmful outcomes rather than benefits. Estimates versus placebo >10 means the treatment is reasonably well tolerated.Using NNT and NNH, the 'likelihood to be helped or harmed' (LHH) ratio was calculated, determining how more likely a patient is to benefit versus experiencing harm from a treatment (LHH of >1 denotes a positive benefit­risk ratio). Both daridorexant doses had a favorable benefit­risk ratio over 3 months with LHH > 1.This analysis supports daridorexant 50 mg as the optimal dose to treat insomnia in adults, offering improved effectiveness compared with daridorexant 25 mg, with a similarly good safety profile.

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.

[Neglected differentiations: Of relative and absolute risk reduction and of seat belts and vaccines]. / Vernachlässigte Differenzierungen: Von relativer und absoluter Risikoreduktion und von Sicherheitsgurten und Impfstoffen.

It is often reported that established COVID-19 vaccines have an efficacy of 70 % or more in preventing serious illnesses or deaths. On the other hand, critics claim that the vaccines have actually shown less than 1 % efficacy in studies and are therefore of little use. Which statement is correct? And where do these discrepancies come from?

Meta-analysed numbers needed to treat of novel antidiabetic drugs for cardiovascular outcomes.

AIMS: Absolute treatment effects-i.e. numbers needed to treat (NNTs)-of novel antidiabetic drugs for cardiovascular outcomes have not been comprehensively evaluated. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of digitalized individual patient outcomes to display and compare absolute treatment effects. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual patient time-to-event information from Kaplan-Meier plots of cardiovascular mortality (CM) and/or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) endpoints from cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) evaluating dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors vs. placebo were digitalized using WebPlotDigitizer 4.2 and the R code of Guyot et al.; Weibull regression models were generated, validated, and used to estimate NNT for individual trials; random-effects meta-analysis generated Meta-NNT with 95% confidence intervals. Sixteen CVOTs reported time-to-event information (14 in primary diabetes and 2 in primary heart failure populations). Thirteen studies including 96 860 patients were meta-analysed for CM: At the median follow-up of 30 months, Meta-NNTs were 178 (64 to ∞ to -223) for DPP-4 inhibitors, 261 (158 to 745) for GLP-1 receptor agonists, and 118 (68 to 435) for SGLT2 inhibitors. Ten studies including 96 128 patients were meta-analysed for HHF: At the median follow-up of 29 months, estimated Meta-NNTs were -644 (229 to ∞ to -134) for DPP-4 inhibitors, 441 (184 to ∞ to -1100) for GLP-1 receptor agonists, and 126 (91 to 208) for SGLT2 inhibitors. SGLT2 inhibitors were especially effective for HHF in primary heart failure populations [Meta-NNT 25 (19 to 39)] vs. primary diabetes populations [Meta-NNT 233 (167 to 385)] at 16 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We found only modest treatment benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for CM and HHF in primary type 2 diabetes mellitus populations. In primary heart failure populations, SGLT2 inhibitor benefits were substantial and comparable in efficacy to established heart failure medication.

Development and Piloting of a Web-Based Tool to Teach Relative and Absolute Risk Reductions.

Interpreting study results is an essential component of decision-making. Both laypeople and healthcare professionals often misinterpret treatment effects that are presented as relative risk reduction. Therefore, we developed and piloted a web-based tool to teach the difference between relative and absolute risk reductions. This project follows the UKMRC-guidance for complex interventions. The tool was developed based on adult learning and design theories. This was followed by a qualitative feasibility study focusing on acceptance, applicability, and comprehensibility with healthcare professionals and laypersons. We conducted think-aloud and semi-structured interviews and analysed them using qualitative content analysis. In addition, we explored calculation skills. Between January 2020 and April 2021, we conducted 22 interviews with 8 laypeople and 14 healthcare professionals from different settings. Overall, the tool proved to be feasible and relevant. With regard to comprehension, we observed an awareness of the interpretation of risk reduction, presented therapy effects were questioned more critically, and the influence of relative effects was recognized. Nevertheless, there were comprehension problems in some of the participants, especially with calculations in connection with low mathematical skills. The tool can be used to improve the interpretation of risk reductions in various target groups and to supplement existing educational programs.

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.

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.

Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib or axitinib compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or cabozantinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a number needed to treat analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Substantial paradigm shifts have been recently registered in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), with combination therapies including immunotherapy showing unprecedented results. We performed number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) analyses to evaluate these approaches in mRCC. AREAS COVERED: Clinical data of mRCC patients enrolled in four phase III trials were collected. The rates at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months for overall survival (OS), duration of response (DoR), and progression-free survival (PFS) were considered. At 6 months, the number of patients that should be treated to prevent one death with sunitinib was 20 for both pembrolizumab-lenvatinib or axitinib, 14 for nivolumab-cabozantinib, and 50 for nivolumab-ipilimumab. NNT was 100 (at 6 months) or >100 (at 12 and 18 months) for nivolumab-ipilimumab. The combinations reported peculiar and not superimposable safety profiles at the NNH analysis. EXPERT OPINION: Although our results should be interpreted with caution, the analysis provides useful insight into the increasingly compelling interpretation of clinical trials. Immune combinations present clinically meaningful differences in terms of efficacy, with some treatments reporting different results at the NNT and the NNH analyses.

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.

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.

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.

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.