Meta-analysis of number needed to treat for diagnosis of melanoma by clinical setting.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To provide a formal statistical comparison of the efficacy of melanoma detection among different clinical settings.Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis of all relevant observational studies on number needed to treat (NNT) in relation to melanoma was performed in MEDLINE. We performed a random-effects model meta-analysis and reported NNTs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The subgroup analysis was related to clinical setting.Results
In all, 29 articles including a total of 398,549 biopsies/excisions were analyzed. The overall NNT was 9.71 (95% CI, 7.72-12.29): 22.62 (95% CI, 12.95-40.10) for primary care, 9.60 (95% CI, 6.97-13.41) for dermatology, and 5.85 (95% CI, 4.24-8.27) for pigmented lesion specialists.Limitations
There is heterogeneity in data reporting and the possibility of missing studies. In addition, the incidence of melanoma varies among clinical settings, which could affect NNT calculations.Conclusion
Pigmented lesion specialists have the lowest NNT, followed by dermatologists, suggesting that involving specialists in the diagnosis and treatment of pigmented skin lesions can likely improve patient outcomes.
SUBMITTER: Petty AJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7167347 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Clinicians are expected to select a therapy based on their appraisal of evidence on benefit-to-risk profiles of therapies. In the management of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), evidence is typically expressed in terms of risk (proportion) of event, risk reduction, relative and hazard rate reduction, or relative reduction in the mean number of magnetic resonance imaging lesions. Interpreting treatment effect using these measures from a RRMS clinical trial is fairly reliable; however, this might not be the case when treatment effect is expressed in terms of the number needed to treat (NNT). The objective of this review is to discuss the utility of NNT in RRMS trials. This article presents an overview of the methodological definition and characteristics of NNT as well as the relative merit of NNT use in RRMS controlled clinical trials, where endpoints are typically time-to-event and frequency of recurrent events. The authors caution against using NNT in multiple sclerosis, a clinically heterogeneous disease that can change course and severity unpredictably. The authors also caution against the use of NNT to interpret results in comparative trials where the absolute risk difference is not statistically significant, computing NNT using the time-to-event endpoint at intermediate time points, computing NNT using the annualized relapse rate, and comparing NNT across trials.
| S-EPMC5447556 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe 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).MethodsFive 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.ResultsBecause 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.ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC7945324 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDroxidopa is an orally active prodrug that significantly improved dizziness/lightheadedness measured using the Orthostatic Hypotension Symptom Assessment (OHSA) Item 1 in patients with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) caused by primary autonomic failure (Parkinson disease, multiple system atrophy, and pure autonomic failure), dopamine β-hydroxylase deficiency, or nondiabetic autonomic neuropathy. The efficacy and safety of droxidopa were assessed by determining the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH).MethodsData collected in randomized, placebo-controlled clinical studies in adults with a clinical diagnosis of symptomatic nOH were pooled for efficacy and safety analyses. NNT and NNH were calculated as reciprocals of the risk difference (difference in event rates) for droxidopa versus placebo.ResultsThe NNT for droxidopa for improvement in OHSA Item 1 was <10. The NNH for adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation in the pooled studies was 81. The likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH) calculated from pooled analysis of the NNT for ≥2 units of improvement in OHSA Item 1 score and the NNH for discontinuations due to AEs were 7.8, 8.8, 3.1, and 3.5 for weeks 1, 2, 4, and 8 after randomization, respectively.ConclusionsDroxidopa is efficacious for treatment of nOH, with an NNT below 10 and an acceptable tolerability profile with NNH ranging from 23 to 302 in the pooled analysis of frequently occurring AEs. Based on the LHH for the pooled analysis at week 1, droxidopa is 7.8 times more likely than placebo to show a clinical benefit than result in discontinuation because of an AE.Trial registrationsClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00782340 , first received October 29, 2008; NCT00633880 , first received March 5, 2008; and NCT01176240 , first received July 30, 2010.
| S-EPMC4990877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe efficacy of anti-proprotein convertase subtilisin/Kexin type 9 (PCSK9) monoclonal antibodies in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains unclear. Therefore, this study aims to assess the effect of PCSK9 inhibitors (alirocumab and evolocumab) on ASCVD patients considering the number needed to treat (NNT).MethodsWe reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the effects of alirocumab or evolocumab and placebo or standards of care. All articles were published in English up to May 2022. Using random effect models, we estimated risk ratios (RRs), NNT, and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsWe incorporated 12 RCTs with 53 486 patients total, of which 27 674 received PCSK9 inhibitors and 25 812 received placebos. The mean follow-up duration was 1.56 years. The effect of PCSK9 inhibitors on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was statistically significant, and the corresponding mean NNT was 36. Alirocumab reduced the risk of MACE, stroke, and coronary revascularization; the corresponding mean NNT were 37, 319, and 107, respectively. Evolocumab positively affected MACE, myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary revascularization; the corresponding mean NNT were 32, 78, 267, and 65, respectively. The effects of alirocumab or evolocumab on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality were not statistically significant.ConclusionThis study suggests that preventing one patient from MACE needed to treat 36 patients with ASCVD with PCSK9 inhibitors for 1.56 years. Both alirocumab and evolocumab reduced MACE, stroke, and coronary revascularization. Evolocumab had a positive effect on myocardial infarction, but no effects were noted for alirocumab. In addition, alirocumab may not be as effective as evolocumab. NNT visualizes the magnitude of efficacy to assist in clinical decisions.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=344908], identifier [CRD42022344908].
| S-EPMC9755489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:Schizophrenia clinical trials commonly measure observed changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. However, it is more intuitive to think of response vs nonresponse, a binary outcome. Assessing binary outcomes enables calculation of number needed to treat (NNT) for therapeutic outcomes, number needed to harm (NNH) for adverse outcomes, and likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH) to demonstrate benefit/risk tradeoffs. Here, NNT, NNH, and LHH were used to evaluate the clinical usefulness of aripiprazole lauroxil in patients with an acute schizophrenia exacerbation. Methods:Categorical efficacy and tolerability data were taken from the pivotal Phase 3 trial evaluating aripiprazole lauroxil for treatment of an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. NNT and NNH values, with 95% CIs, were calculated in this post hoc analysis. Results:Using the intent-to-treat population for the pooled doses of aripiprazole lauroxil (441 mg [n=196] and 882 mg [n=204] q4w), responder rates (?30% improvement from baseline PANSS total score) were 35.3% for aripiprazole lauroxil arms vs 18.4% for placebo (n=196), yielding a NNT of 6 (95% CI: 5-11). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events (AEs) were higher among patients randomized to placebo than to either aripiprazole lauroxil dose. Akathisia was the only AE with an incidence ?5% in each aripiprazole lauroxil group and at least twice that of placebo (11.6%, 11.5%, and 4.3% of the patients receiving aripiprazole lauroxil 441 mg, 882 mg, and placebo, respectively), producing a NNH of 14 (95% CI: 9-33) for pooled aripiprazole lauroxil doses vs placebo. Calculating LHH for therapeutic response vs akathisia, aripiprazole lauroxil was 2.3 times more likely to result in a therapeutic response than an incident of akathisia. Conclusion:Using metrics of NNT, NNH, and LHH, aripiprazole lauroxil was an efficacious and well-tolerated intervention in a pivotal study in patients with an acute schizophrenia exacerbation.
| S-EPMC6751763 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The number needed to treat (NNT) is considered an intuitive as well as popular effect measure. The aims of this review were to 1) explain why we cannot compare trial-specific NNT estimates for the competing treatments evaluated in different randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2) outline the principles of how relative treatment effects of different trials can be compared and results can be presented as NNT, without violating the principles of valid between-trial comparisons. Our premise is that ratio measures for relative treatment effects of response outcomes are less prone to effect modification than absolute difference measures of response outcomes. Accordingly, any between-trial comparisons of the efficacy of competing interventions using the study-specific ORs are less likely to be invalid or biased than comparisons based on the study-specific NNT estimates. However, treatment-specific ORs obtained from a meta-analysis or taken directly from an individual study can be transformed into consistent treatment-specific NNT estimates that allow for credible comparisons of treatments when these ratio measures are applied to the same reference response estimate. The theoretical discussion is illustrated with a relevant indirect comparison of biologics for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Between-trial comparisons directly based on the NNT of individual trials may result in erroneous conclusions and should be avoided. Treatment-specific NNT estimates need to be based on the same probability of response with the common reference treatment against which the interventions are compared.
| S-EPMC6298880 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To investigate the issues of the NNT based on the absolute risk reduction (ARR), namely NNTARR; and to propose an alternative definition and an estimation procedure based on the restricted mean survival time (RMST), namely NNTRMST, for RCTs. Three recent clinical trials with survival endpoints, representing different scenarios, were selected to compare the performance of the NNTARR and NNTRMST. For each trial, both versions of NNT were estimated using the reconstructed individual-level data, and the average life gain (ALG) was derived to show the differences between the NNTARR and NNTRMST. Four hypothetical scenarios were constructed to further explore the advantages and disadvantages of each definition of the NNT for survival endpoints. For the illustrative trial examples, the NNTARR failed to capture the profile of the treatment effect over time as it is calculated at a specific time point. Sometimes it may even result in misinterpretations of the treatment benefit. In particular, when either the observed event rates are low, the two survival curves cross, or a mixture of survival patterns exist. In contrast, the NNTRMST based on the average survival (or event-free) time can quantify the treatment effect more accurately and its interpretation is more intuitive and clinically meaningful. The NNTRMST can be used as an alternative measure for quantifying treatment effect in RCTs, especially so in the case of the ALG, which helps practitioners to better understand the magnitude of the benefit conferred by treatment.
| S-EPMC6799908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe analyzed data retrieved through a PubMed search of randomized, placebo-controlled trials of first-generation antipsychotic long-acting injectables (haloperidol decanoate, bromperidol decanoate, and fluphenazine decanoate), and a company database of paliperidone palmitate, to compare the benefit-risk ratio in patients with schizophrenia.MethodsFrom the eight studies that met our selection criteria, two efficacy and six safety parameters were selected for calculation of number needed to treat (NNT), number needed to harm (NNH), and the likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH) using comparisons of active drug relative to placebo. NNTs for prevention of relapse ranged from 2 to 5 for paliperidone palmitate, haloperidol decanoate, and fluphenazine decanoate, indicating a moderate to large effect size.ResultsAmong the selected maintenance studies, NNH varied considerably, but indicated a lower likelihood of encountering extrapyramidal side effects, such as akathisia, tremor, and tardive dyskinesia, with paliperidone palmitate versus placebo than with first-generation antipsychotic depot agents versus placebo. This was further supported by an overall higher NNH for paliperidone palmitate versus placebo with respect to anticholinergic use and Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale positive score. LHH for preventing relapse versus use of anticholinergics was 15 for paliperidone palmitate and 3 for fluphenazine decanoate, favoring paliperidone palmitate.ConclusionOverall, paliperidone palmitate had a similar NNT and a more favorable NNH compared with the first-generation long-acting injectables assessed.
| S-EPMC3083982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:English-language literature cited in MEDLINE from January, 1980 to October 30, 2014 was searched by using terms of antipsychotic, generic and brand names of atypical antipsychotics, "bipolar depression/bipolar disorder", "placebo", and "trial". The parameters of response (≥50% improvement on MADRS, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score), remission (either ≤12 or 8 on MADRS total score at endpoint), discontinuation due to adverse events (DAEs), somnolence, ≥7% weight gain, overall extrapyramidal side-effects (EPSs), and akathisia, were extracted from originally published primary outcome papers. The number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) for response and remission or harm (NNH) for DAEs or other side effects relative to placebo were estimated and presented with the estimate and 95% confidence interval. Olanzapine monotherapy, olanzapine-fluoxetine combination (OFC), quetiapine-IR monotherapy, quetiapine-XR monotherapy, lurasidone monotherapy, and lurasidone adjunctive therapy were superior to placebo with NNTs for responses of 11-12, 4, 7-8, 4, 4-5, and 7, and NNTs for remission of 11-12, 4, 5-11, 7, 6-7, and 6, respectively. There was no significant difference between OFC and lamotrigine, and between aripiprazole or ziprasidone and placebo in response and remission. Olanzapine monotherapy, quetiapine-IR, quetiapine-XR, aripiprazole, and ziprasidone 120-160 mg/day had significantly increased risk for DAEs with NNHs of 24, 8-14, 9, 12, and 10, respectively. For somnolence, quetiapine-XR had the smallest NNH of 4. For ≥7% weight gain, olanzapine monotherapy and OFC had the smallest NNHs with both of 5. For akathisia, aripiprazole had the smallest NNH of 5. These findings suggest that among the FDA-approved agents including OFC, quetiapine-IR and -XR, lurasidone monotherapy and adjunctive therapy to a mood stabilizer, the differences in the NNTs for response and remission are small, but the differences in NNHs for DAEs and common side-effects are large. Therefore, the selection of an FDA-approved atypical antipsychotic for bipolar depression should be based upon safety and tolerability.
| S-EPMC5563672 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionSubcutaneous galcanezumab was an effective, well-tolerated preventive treatment for adults with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) in 4 phase 3 randomized controlled trials: EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, REGAIN, and CONQUER. Number needed to treat (NNT) and to harm (NNH) are metrics of effect size used to evaluate benefit-risk profiles. This study evaluated NNT, NNH, and benefit-risk profiles (measured as likelihood to be helped or harmed, LHH) of galcanezumab 120 mg versus placebo in patients with EM or CM.MethodsPrimary efficacy outcomes were responses defined as ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 75% reductions from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days in patients with EM (EVOLVE-1; EVOLVE-2; CONQUER) and CM (REGAIN; CONQUER); corresponding NNTs to achieve respective responses; and corresponding NNHs for discontinuations due to adverse events (DCAEs) among the safety population. Secondary efficacy outcomes were responses for patients with ≥ 2 failed prior preventive treatments due to lack of efficacy and/or for tolerability reasons. All LHHs were based on ≥ 50% response and DCAEs.ResultsDuring double-blind treatment periods with galcanezumab 120 mg, NNT to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses ranged from 4 to 10 and NNT to achieve ≥ 75% responses ranged from 5 to 23 in individual trials. NNH ranged from 93 to 1000, while LHH ranged from 18.6 to 104.6. NNTs were generally more robust among patients with EM than with CM; however, in patients with failure of ≥ 2 prior preventive treatments, NNTs to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses were similar between patients with CM and EM. NNHs were imputed as 1000 for both migraine types. Resulting LHHs were 178.8 (EM) and 127 (CM).ConclusionAcross 4 trials, galcanezumab 120 mg demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile versus placebo, based on low NNTs to achieve response and high NNHs associated with DCAEs. LHH values consistently far exceeded 1.Trial registration numbersEVOLVE-1: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614183; EVOLVE-2: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614196; REGAIN: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614261; CONQUER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03559257.
| S-EPMC8342379 | biostudies-literature