Surgical site occurrence after prophylactic use of mesh for prevention of incisional hernia in midline laparotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The use of mesh is the standard for the prevention of incisional hernia (IH). However, the effect of surgical site occurrence (SSO) has never been compared. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the prevalence of SSO and measure its negative effect through the calculation of the number needed to treat for net effect (NNT net). METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The primary objective was to determine the prevalence of SSO and IH, and the secondary objective was to determine the NNT net as a metric to measure the combined benefits and harms. Only published clinical trials were included. The risk of bias was analyzed, and the random effects model was used to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies comparing 2344 patients were included. The incidence of IH was significantly lower in the mesh group than in the control group, with an OR of 0.29 (95% CI 0.16-0.49, p = 0.0001). The incidence of SSO was higher in the mesh group than in the control group, with an OR of 1.21 (95% CI 0.85-1.72, p = 0.0001) but without statistical significance. Therefore, the way to compare the benefits and risks of each of the studies was done with the calculation of the NNT net, which is the average number of patients who need to be treated to see the benefit exceeding the harm by one event, and the result was 5, which is the average number of patients who need to be treated to see the benefit exceeding the harm by one event. CONCLUSION: The use of mesh reduces the prevalence of IH and it does not increases the prevalence of SSO, the NNT net determined that the use of mesh continues to be beneficial for the patient.

A nonparametric proportional risk model to assess a treatment effect in time-to-event data.

Time-to-event analysis often relies on prior parametric assumptions, or, if a semiparametric approach is chosen, Cox's model. This is inherently tied to the assumption of proportional hazards, with the analysis potentially invalidated if this assumption is not fulfilled. In addition, most interpretations focus on the hazard ratio, that is often misinterpreted as the relative risk (RR), the ratio of the cumulative distribution functions. In this paper, we introduce an alternative to current methodology for assessing a treatment effect in a two-group situation, not relying on the proportional hazards assumption but assuming proportional risks. Precisely, we propose a new nonparametric model to directly estimate the RR of two groups to experience an event under the assumption that the risk ratio is constant over time. In addition to this relative measure, our model allows for calculating the number needed to treat as an absolute measure, providing the possibility of an easy and holistic interpretation of the data. We demonstrate the validity of the approach by means of a simulation study and present an application to data from a large randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of dapagliflozin on all-cause mortality.

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.

Number needed to treat and associated cost analysis of cenobamate versus third-generation anti-seizure medications for the treatment of focal-onset seizures in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Epilepsy is a serious neurological disease, ranking high in the top causes of disability. The main goal of its treatment is to achieve seizure freedom without intolerable adverse effects. However, approximately 40% of patients suffer from Drug-Resistant Epilepsy (DRE) despite the availability of the latest options called third-generation Anti-Seizure Medications(ASMs). Cenobamate is the first ASM approved in Spain for the adjunctive treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures (FOS) in adult patients with DRE. The introduction of a new drug increases the number of therapeutic options available, making it important to compare it with existing alternatives in terms of clinical benefit and efficiency. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the clinical benefit, in terms of the Number Needed to Treat (NNT), and the efficiency, in terms of Cost per NNT (CNT), associated with cenobamate versus third-generation ASMs used in Spain for the adjunctive treatment of FOS in patients with DRE. METHODS: The Number Needed to Treat data was calculated based on the ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom endpoints (defined as the percentage of patients achieving 50% and 100% reduction in seizure frequency, respectively), obtained from pivotal clinical trials performed with cenobamate, brivaracetam, perampanel, lacosamide, and eslicarbazepine acetate. The NNT was established as the inverse of the treatment responder rate minus the placebo responder rate and was calculated based on the minimum, mid-range Daily Defined Dose (DDD), and maximum doses studied in the pivotal clinical trials of each ASM. CNT was calculated by multiplying the annual treatment cost by NNT values for each treatment option. RESULTS: In terms of NNT, cenobamate was the ASM associated with the lowest values at all doses for both ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom compared with the alternatives. In terms of CNT, for ≥50% responder rate, cenobamate was the ASM associated with the lowest CNT values at DDD and lacosamide and eslicarbazepine acetate at the minimum and maximum dose, respectively. For seizure freedom, cenobamate was associated with the lowest CNT value at DDD and the maximum dose and lacosamide at the minimum dose. CONCLUSIONS: Cenobamate could represent the most effective ASM in all doses studied compared to the third-generation ASMs and the most efficient option at DDD for both ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom. This study could represent an important contribution towards informed decision-making regarding the selection of the most appropriate therapy for FOS in adult patients with DRE from a clinical and economical perspective in Spain.

Practitioner characteristics, diagnostic accuracy metrics and discovering-individual with respect to 637 melanomas documented by 27 general practitioners on the Skin Cancer Audit Research Database.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Knowledge of accuracy for melanoma diagnosis and melanoma discovering-individual in primary care is limited. We describe general practitioner (GP) characteristics and analyse defined diagnostic accuracy metrics for GPs in the current study comparing this with a previous study for GPs common to both, and we analyse the individual first discovering each melanoma as a lesion of concern. METHODS: The characteristics and diagnostic accuracy of 27 Australasian GPs documenting 637 melanomas on the Skin Cancer Audit Research Database (SCARD) in 2013 were described and analysed. The number needed to treat (NNT) and percentage of melanomas that were in situ (percentage in situ) were analysed as surrogates for specificity and sensitivity, respectively. The discovering-individual was analysed according to patient age and sex and lesion Breslow thickness. RESULTS: The average NNT and percentage in situ were 5.73% and 65.07%, respectively. For 21 GPs in both a 2008-2010 study and the current study, the NNT was 10.78 and 5.56, respectively (p = 0.0037). A consistent trend of decreasing NNT and increasing percentage in situ through increasingly subspecialised GP categories did not reach statistical significance. NNT trended high at ages and sites for which melanoma was rare. While the patient or family member was more likely to discover thick melanomas and melanomas in patients under 40 years, GPs discovered 73.9% of the melanomas as lesions of concern. CONCLUSIONS: GPs were the discovering-individuals for the majority of melanomas in the current study and their accuracy metrics compared favourably with published figures for dermatologists and GPs.

Treatment effect measures under nonproportional hazards.

In a clinical trial with a time-to-event endpoint the treatment effect can be measured in various ways. Under proportional hazards all reasonable measures (such as the hazard ratio and the difference in restricted mean survival time) are consistent in the following sense: Take any control group survival distribution such that the hazard rate remains above zero; if there is no benefit by any measure there is no benefit by all measures, and as the magnitude of treatment benefit increases by any measure it increases by all measures. Under nonproportional hazards, however, survival curves can cross, and the direction of the effect for any pair of measures can be inconsistent. In this paper we critically evaluate a variety of treatment effect measures in common use and identify flaws with them. In particular, we demonstrate that a treatment's benefit has two distinct and independent dimensions which can be measured by the difference in the survival rate at the end of follow-up and the difference in restricted mean survival time, and that commonly used measures do not adequately capture both dimensions. We demonstrate that a generalized hazard difference, which can be estimated by the difference in exposure-adjusted subject incidence rates, captures both dimensions, and that its inverse, the number of patient-years of follow-up that results in one fewer event (the NYNT), is an easily interpretable measure of the magnitude of clinical benefit.

Parametric and nonparametric methods for confidence intervals and sample size planning for win probability in parallel-group randomized trials with Likert item and Likert scale data.

Data on the Likert scale are ubiquitous in medical research, including randomized trials. Statistical analysis of such data may be conducted using the means of raw scores or the rank information of the scores. In the context of parallel-group randomized trials, we quantify treatment effects by the probability that a subject in the treatment group has a better score than (or a win over) a subject in the control group. Asymptotic parametric and nonparametric confidence intervals for this win probability and associated sample size formulas are derived for studies with only follow-up scores, and those with both baseline and follow-up measurements. We assessed the performance of both the parametric and nonparametric approaches using simulation studies based on real studies with Likert item and Likert scale data. The simulation results demonstrate that even without baseline adjustment, the parametric methods did not perform well, in terms of bias, interval coverage percentage, balance of tail error, and assurance of achieving a pre-specified precision. In contrast, the nonparametric approach performed very well for both the unadjusted and adjusted win probability. We illustrate the methods with two examples: one using Likert item data and the other using Like scale data. We conclude that non-parametric methods are preferable for two-group randomization trials with Likert data. Illustrative SAS code for the nonparametric approach using existing procedures is provided.

Pain Reduction With AbobotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Hallux Valgus in Adult Participants: Results of a Randomized and Placebo-Controlled Phase 2 Trial.

AbobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A, Dysport® [Ipsen, Paris, France]) inhibits acetylcholine release at the neuromuscular junction and may modulate pain signaling in hallux valgus (HV). This randomized study (NCT03569098) included a double-blind phase (aboBoNT-A 300U, 500U or placebo injections into forefoot muscles) and an open-label aboBoNT-A treatment period in participants with an HV diagnosis and no HV surgery. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) score at week 8. Secondary endpoints included change in NPRS (other time points) and proportion of participants with ≥20% reduction from baseline NPRS (responders). Post-hoc analyses assessed number of days in a 7-day evaluation period that participants spent in a lower pain state than at baseline. Participants received aboBoNT-A 300U (n = 63), 500U (n = 60) or placebo (n = 63). Superiority to placebo was not observed with either aboBoNT-A dose at week 8, thus the primary endpoint was unmet. At week 12, a trend toward efficacy was observed with aboBoNT-A 500U versus placebo and the proportion of participants with ≥20% reduction from baseline NPRS was greater with aboBoNT-A 500U versus placebo (p = .006). Participants in the aboBoNT-A 500U group spent more days with lower NPRS than their lowest baseline score, and with NPRS ≥2 points lower than their mean baseline NPRS at weeks 8 and 12 versus placebo (all p < .05; post-hoc). AboBoNT-A was well tolerated. Although the primary endpoint was unmet, other endpoints showed a nominal advantage for aboBoNT versus placebo for treatment of HV-related pain, particularly at week 12. Further clinical evaluation is needed to establish whether botulinum toxins represent a viable non-operative treatment option for HV-associated pain. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Hallux valgus is the medical name for a bunion, a foot deformity that can worsen over time. Patients with bunions experience pain and walking can become difficult, which can affect their quality of life. Foot support aids (e.g., braces, splints and inserts) are available, but surgery is the standard treatment. This study looked at how injections of a specific type of botulinum toxin, called abobotulinumtoxinA or "aboBoNT-A", into the foot may help to reduce pain in patients with bunions. The study included 186 patients aged 18 to 75 years who had not had surgery on their bunion. The researchers looked at how well the injections worked using scales that measure the pain levels the patient experienced. The main outcome was whether patients who had aboBoNT-A injections had less pain after 8 weeks than they did before treatment. The study included patients who were injected with saltwater (no treatment) to check that any treatment effect was real. Researchers also looked at the results after 12 weeks, as well as how many patients had less pain after treatment than before and how many days in a given week patients experienced less pain after treatment than they did before. There was no reduction in pain levels with aboBoNT-A injections after 8 weeks compared with no treatment. However, the other study outcomes suggested that aboBoNT-A resulted in a small benefit compared with no treatment, especially after 12 weeks. Further medical research is needed to establish whether botulinum toxins represent an alternative treatment to surgery for the pain associated with bunions.

Number Needed to Treat (NNT): Evaluation Tool Used in Health and Wellness Program.

As life insurance companies evaluate prospective health and wellness programs, one frequently used tool is the number needed to treat (NNT) calculation. It is helpful to identify what the NNT might be for individual components of the program as well as for the whole program when all components are combined.

Number needed to treat and cost per responder of Janus kinase inhibitors approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of baricitinib, tofacitinib, and upadacitinib regimens, compared to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) alone, among Japanese patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) inadequately responsive to csDMARD, measured in terms of number needed to treat (NNT) and cost per responder (CPR). METHODS: Efficacy data were derived from two recent network meta-analyses among global and Japanese population. The cost perspective was that of the Japanese Health Service. Both NNT and CPR were based on disease activity score for 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) remission and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 at 12 and 24 weeks. RESULTS: Over 12 weeks, the median NNT and the median CPR to achieve DAS28-CRP remission were 4.3 and JPY 1,799,696 [USD 16,361], respectively, for upadacitinib 15 mg + csDMARD. The equivalent results were 6.0 and JPY 2,691,684 [USD 24,470] for baricitinib 4 mg + csDMARD and 5.6 and JPY 2,507,152 [USD 22,792] for tofacitinib 5 mg + csDMARD. Similar rankings were observed at 24 weeks and for other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib 15 mg was associated with the lowest NNT and CPR among the three Janus kinase inhibitors used in treatment regimens for Japanese patients with moderate-to-severe RA inadequately responsive to csDMARD.

Prevention of preeclampsia with aspirin.

Preeclampsia is defined as hypertension arising after 20 weeks of gestational age with proteinuria or other signs of end-organ damage and is an important cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, particularly when of early onset. Although a significant amount of research has been dedicated in identifying preventive measures for preeclampsia, the incidence of the condition has been relatively unchanged in the last decades. This could be attributed to the fact that the underlying pathophysiology of preeclampsia is not entirely understood. There is increasing evidence suggesting that suboptimal trophoblastic invasion leads to an imbalance of angiogenic and antiangiogenic proteins, ultimately causing widespread inflammation and endothelial damage, increased platelet aggregation, and thrombotic events with placental infarcts. Aspirin at doses below 300 mg selectively and irreversibly inactivates the cyclooxygenase-1 enzyme, suppressing the production of prostaglandins and thromboxane and inhibiting inflammation and platelet aggregation. Such an effect has led to the hypothesis that aspirin could be useful for preventing preeclampsia. The first possible link between the use of aspirin and the prevention of preeclampsia was suggested by a case report published in 1978, followed by the first randomized controlled trial published in 1985. Since then, numerous randomized trials have been published, reporting the safety of the use of aspirin in pregnancy and the inconsistent effects of aspirin on the rates of preeclampsia. These inconsistencies, however, can be largely explained by a high degree of heterogeneity regarding the selection of trial participants, baseline risk of the included women, dosage of aspirin, gestational age of prophylaxis initiation, and preeclampsia definition. An individual patient data meta-analysis has indicated a modest 10% reduction in preeclampsia rates with the use of aspirin, but later meta-analyses of aggregate data have revealed a dose-response effect of aspirin on preeclampsia rates, which is maximized when the medication is initiated before 16 weeks of gestational age. Recently, the Aspirin for Evidence-Based Preeclampsia Prevention trial has revealed that aspirin at a daily dosage of 150 mg, initiated before 16 weeks of gestational age, and given at night to a high-risk population, identified by a combined first trimester screening test, reduces the incidence of preterm preeclampsia by 62%. A secondary analysis of the Aspirin for Evidence-Based Preeclampsia Prevention trial data also indicated a reduction in the length of stay in the neonatal intensive care unit by 68% compared with placebo, mainly because of a reduction in births before 32 weeks of gestational age with preeclampsia. The beneficial effect of aspirin has been found to be similar in subgroups according to different maternal characteristics, except for the presence of chronic hypertension, where no beneficial effect is evident. In addition, the effect size of aspirin has been found to be more pronounced in women with good compliance to treatment. In general, randomized trials are underpowered to investigate the treatment effect of aspirin on the rates of other placental-associated adverse outcomes such as fetal growth restriction and stillbirth. This article summarizes the evidence around aspirin for the prevention of preeclampsia and its complications.

First trimester preeclampsia screening and prediction.

Preeclampsia is a major cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Early-onset disease requiring preterm delivery is associated with a higher risk of complications in both mothers and babies. Evidence suggests that the administration of low-dose aspirin initiated before 16 weeks' gestation significantly reduces the rate of preterm preeclampsia. Therefore, it is important to identify pregnant women at risk of developing preeclampsia during the first trimester of pregnancy, thus allowing timely therapeutic intervention. Several professional organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) have proposed screening for preeclampsia based on maternal risk factors. The approach recommended by ACOG and NICE essentially treats each risk factor as a separate screening test with additive detection rate and screen-positive rate. Evidence has shown that preeclampsia screening based on the NICE and ACOG approach has suboptimal performance, as the NICE recommendation only achieves detection rates of 41% and 34%, with a 10% false-positive rate, for preterm and term preeclampsia, respectively. Screening based on the 2013 ACOG recommendation can only achieve detection rates of 5% and 2% for preterm and term preeclampsia, respectively, with a 0.2% false-positive rate. Various first trimester prediction models have been developed. Most of them have not undergone or failed external validation. However, it is worthy of note that the Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) first trimester prediction model (namely the triple test), which consists of a combination of maternal factors and measurements of mean arterial pressure, uterine artery pulsatility index, and serum placental growth factor, has undergone successful internal and external validation. The FMF triple test has detection rates of 90% and 75% for the prediction of early and preterm preeclampsia, respectively, with a 10% false-positive rate. Such performance of screening is superior to that of the traditional method by maternal risk factors alone. The use of the FMF prediction model, followed by the administration of low-dose aspirin, has been shown to reduce the rate of preterm preeclampsia by 62%. The number needed to screen to prevent 1 case of preterm preeclampsia by the FMF triple test is 250. The key to maintaining optimal screening performance is to establish standardized protocols for biomarker measurements and regular biomarker quality assessment, as inaccurate measurement can affect screening performance. Tools frequently used to assess quality control include the cumulative sum and target plot. Cumulative sum is a sensitive method to detect small shifts over time, and point of shift can be easily identified. Target plot is a tool to evaluate deviation from the expected multiple of median and the expected median of standard deviation. Target plot is easy to interpret and visualize. However, it is insensitive to detecting small deviations. Adherence to well-defined protocols for the measurements of mean arterial pressure, uterine artery pulsatility index, and placental growth factor is required. This article summarizes the existing literature on the different methods, recommendations by professional organizations, quality assessment of different components of risk assessment, and clinical implementation of the first trimester screening for preeclampsia.

Number needed to treat for net effect of anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation: Real-world vs. clinical-trial evidence.

AIMS: The net benefit of oral anticoagulants (OACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) is poorly understood. We aimed to determine the NNT for net effect (NNTnet ) using calculator of absolute stroke risk (CARS) in anticoagulated patients with AF in real-world and clinical trial cohorts. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of patient-level data from the real-world Murcia AF Project and AMADEUS clinical trial. Baseline risk of stroke was determined using CARS. The risk of stroke and major bleeding events with OAC were determined using the number of respective events at 1-year. NNTnet was calculated as a reciprocal of the net effect of absolute risk reduction with OAC (NNTnet  = 1/(absolute risk reduction of stroke[ARRstroke ] - absolute risk increase of major bleeding[ARIbleeding ])). RESULTS: In total, 3511 patients were included (1306 [37.2%] real-world patients and 2205 [62.8%] clinical trial participants). The absolute 1-year stroke risk was similar across both cohorts. In the real-world cohort, OAC was associated with a 4.0% ARRstroke , 25 NNTbenefit , 1.0% ARIbleeding , 100 NNTharm and 34 NNTnet . In the clinical trial cohort, OAC was associated with a 3.8% ARRstroke , 27 NNTbenefit , 1.6% ARIbleeding , 63 NNTharm and 46 NNTnet . In both cohorts, the NNTnet was significantly lower in patients with an excess stroke risk of ≥2% by CARS. CONCLUSION: Overall, the NNTnet approach in AF incorporates information regarding baseline risk of stroke and major bleeding, and relative effects of OAC with the potential to include multiple additional outcomes and weighting of events based on their perceived effects by individual patients.

Pharmacoeconomic analysis of biologics and methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis from the standpoint of the number needed to treat concept under the Japanese health insurance system.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of biologics and methotrexate (MTX) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using the number needed to treat (NNT) concept and total actual health care cost. METHODS: This study included 121 RA patients with newly prescribed biologics and/or MTX between 2012 and 2017. The NNT was calculated based on the 24 week remission rate of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI). RESULTS: Remission rates were 76.4% for DAS28-ESR and 45.4% for CDAI in the biologics group and 63.6% and 24.2%, respectively, in the MTX group. The NNT was calculated as 6.4 and 4.2 in the biologics group and 34.2 and 35.2 in the MTX group, respectively. Mean total actual health care costs were 1,044,066 JPY (9835 US$)/24 weeks per treated patient in the biologics group and 75,860 JPY (715 US$)/24 weeks in the MTX group. Although the effectiveness of biologics was superior to MTX from the standpoint of NNT, the mean total health care cost and mean cost per NNT were much higher in the biologics group. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effectiveness is clearly higher for MTX than biologics from the standpoint of mean total health care cost per adjusted NNT under the Japanese health insurance system.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with varenicline for nicotine dependence compared with smoking cessation without pharmacotherapy in the real world.

PURPOSE: Smoking is an important public health issue. Although measures to support smoking cessation have been implemented worldwide, smokers often fail to quit smoking after receiving pharmacotherapies for nicotine dependence. The present study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of varenicline for smoking cessation compared with no pharmacotherapy using actual paid medical cost data in Japan. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 3657 subjects who had quit smoking with varenicline or no pharmacotherapy. We extracted health examination and medical claim data from a health insurer database for the period 2012-2015. We calculated the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) of varenicline using actual paid medical costs for nicotine dependence and the number needed to treat to maintain smoking cessation compared with no pharmacotherapy, considering sex, age, income, and occupation. RESULTS: The 1- and 2-year smoking cessation maintenance rates were 69.7% and 62.4%, respectively. We found that 8.8% of subjects who quit smoking used varenicline for nicotine dependence and the cost per person was Japanese Yen (JPY) 52 177 (U.S. dollars [USD] 474; USD 1 = JPY 110). The ICER of varenicline was dominant when comparing 2-year cessation with 1-year cessation. Male, age <40 years, low income, and manufacturing workers were the most cost-effective variables. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effective variables of varenicline in the real world were investigated. The results of this study strengthen the evidence regarding which type of people should be targeted for measures to support smoking cessation using varenicline.

Role Of Ovarian Metastases In Colorectal Cancer (ROMIC): a Dutch study protocol to evaluate the effect of prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: The mean incidence of ovarian metastases (OM) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) is 3.4%. The 5-year survival of these patients, even when operated with curative intent, is remarkably low. The lifetime risk of ovarian cancer is approximately 1.3%. Prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy (PSO, or surgical removal of the ovaries and fallopian tubes) could reduce the number of CRC patients that develop OM after removal of the primary tumor, as well as preventing the occurrence of primary ovarian cancer. Recently, the care pathway for CRC has been changed in several hospitals in line with the updated Dutch guideline. The possibility of PSO is now discussed with postmenopausal CRC patients in these hospitals. The aims of the current study are firstly to estimate the incidence of OM and primary ovarian cancer in postmenopausal patients with CRC, and secondly to evaluate the effect of PSO in these patients. METHODS: An information bulletin and decision guide on this topic was implemented in several Dutch hospitals in 2020. Post-decision outcomes will be collected prospectively. The study population consists of postmenopausal (≥ 60 years of age) patients that are operated with curative intent for CRC. Based on their own preference, patients will be divided into two groups: those who choose to undergo PSO and those who do not. The main study parameters are the reduction in incidence of ovarian malignancies (metastatic or primary) following PSO, and the number needed to treat (NNT) by PSO to prevent one case of ovarian malignancy. DISCUSSION: This will be the first study to evaluate the effect of PSO in postmenopausal CRC patients that is facilitated by an altered CRC care pathway. The results of this study are expected to provide relevant information on whether PSO adds significant value to postmenopausal patients with CRC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, NL7870. Registered on 2019 July 12. URL of trial registry record: https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NL7870 . PROTOCOL VERSION: 1.0, date 2021 June 8.

Transporting Subgroup Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials for Planning Implementation of New Interventions.

Subgroup analyses of randomized controlled trials guide resource allocation and implementation of new interventions by identifying groups of individuals who are likely to benefit most from the intervention. Unfortunately, trial populations are rarely representative of the target populations of public health or clinical interest. Unless the relevant differences between trial and target populations are accounted for, subgroup results from trials might not reflect which groups in the target population will benefit most from the intervention. Transportability provides a rigorous framework for applying results derived in potentially highly selected study populations to external target populations. The method requires that researchers measure and adjust for all variables that 1) modify the effect of interest and 2) differ between the target and trial populations. To date, applications of transportability have focused on the external validity of overall study results and understanding within-trial heterogeneity; however, this approach has not yet been used for subgroup analyses of trials. Through an example from the Iniciativa Profilaxis Pre-Exposición (iPrEx) study (multiple countries, 2007-2010) of preexposure prophylaxis for human immunodeficiency virus, we illustrate how transporting subgroup analyses can produce target-specific subgroup effect estimates and numbers needed to treat. This approach could lead to more tailored and accurate guidance for resource allocation and cost-effectiveness analyses.

Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention: A systematic review and likelihood to help or harm analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway (anti-CGRP mAbs) have shown promising efficacy in randomised clinical trials for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine, but no head-to-head comparisons with established treatments are available. We aimed to examine absolute differences in benefit-risk ratios between anti-CGRP mAbs, topiramate and propranolol for the prevention of episodic migraine and between anti-CGRP mAbs, topiramate and onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine using a likelihood to help versus harm analysis. METHODS: The number of patients needed to be treated for a patient to achieve ≥ 50% reduction in migraine days (NNTB50%) was used as an effect size metric of efficacy. The number of patients needed to be treated for a patient to experience an adverse event that led to treatment discontinuation (NNTHD-AE) was used as a measure of risk. Likelihood to help versus harm values - which are the ratios of NNTH:NNTB - were calculated using data from phase 3 randomised clinical trials. RESULTS: All agents tested were more likely to be beneficial than harmful (likelihood to help versus harm > 1) with the exception of topiramate at 200 mg per day for the prevention of episodic migraine. Anti-CGRP mAbs in all tested doses had higher LHH values than propranolol or topiramate for episodic migraine and onabotulinumtoxinA or topiramate for chronic migraine prevention. Fremanezumab had the highest LHH ratio in episodic migraine and galcanezumab in chronic migraine. CONCLUSION: This analysis showed that anti-CGRP mAbs exhibit a more favourable benefit-risk ratio than established treatments for episodic and chronic migraine. Head-to-head studies are needed to confirm these results.

Confidence interval estimation for treatment effects in cluster randomization trials based on ranks.

A cluster randomization trial is one in which clusters of individuals are randomly allocated to different intervention arms. This design has become the standard for the evaluation of health care and educational strategies. To assess treatment effect, many cluster randomization trials involve outcomes that are lack meaningful units, making interpretation difficult. This difficulty may be dealt with by estimating the Mann-Whitney probability, which quantifies the probability that a typical response from one treatment arm is larger (or smaller) than a typical response from the other arm. In this work, we propose procedures for estimating this probability in cluster randomization trials. Primary emphasis is given to confidence interval estimation in trials with a small number of large clusters. The essence of the procedures is to obtain placement values based on overall ranks and arm-specific ranks prior to application of the ratio estimator, cluster-size-weighted means and mixed models for adjusting clustering effects. Nine confidence intervals were developed by applying three interval methods each based on the three variance estimators. The proposed methods can be applied to studies with binary, ordinal or continuous outcomes without making parametric assumptions. Simulation results demonstrated that the three variance estimators performed equally well, with the confidence interval procedures based on logit and inverse hyperbolic sine transformations performing better in terms of coverage and average interval width, even when the numbers of clusters are as small as 3 to 5 clusters per arm. The methods are illustrated using data from three published cluster randomization trials with SAS code provided.

Reduction in number to treat versus number needed to treat.

BACKGROUND: We propose a new measure of treatment effect based on the expected reduction in the number of patients to treat (RNT) which is defined as the difference of the reciprocals of clinical measures of interest between two arms. Compared with the conventional number needed to treat (NNT), RNT shows superiority with both binary and time-to-event endpoints in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Five real RCTs, two with binary endpoints and three with survival endpoints, are used to illustrate the concept of RNT and compare the performances between RNT and NNT. For survival endpoints, we propose two versions of RNT: one is based on the survival rate and the other is based on the restricted mean survival time (RMST). Hypothetical scenarios are also constructed to explore the advantages and disadvantages of RNT and NNT. RESULTS: Because there is no baseline for computation of NNT, it fails to differentiate treatment effect in the absolute scale. In contrast, RNT conveys more information than NNT due to its reversed order of differencing and inverting. For survival endpoints, two versions of RNT calculated as the difference of the reciprocals of survival rates and RMSTs are complementary to each other. The RMST-based RNT can capture the entire follow-up profile and thus is clinically more intuitive and meaningful, as it inherits the time-to-event characteristics for survival endpoints instead of using truncated binary endpoints at a specific time point. CONCLUSIONS: The RNT can serve as an alternative measure for quantifying treatment effect in RCTs, which complements NNT to help patients and clinicians better understand the magnitude of treatment benefit.