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:IntroductionNumber needed to treat (NNT) estimates are a practical metric to help identify the most effective therapies. Our objective is to compare 11 biologic drugs for moderate-to-severe psoriasis in terms of NNT.MethodsThe NNT data were obtained from a Bayesian network meta-analysis of 42 double-blind, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials for 11 biologics (adalimumab, brodalumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, secukinumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab). We determined NNT to achieve Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75/90/100 responses at weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, and 48/52 and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) response 0, 1 at week 12.ResultsHighest efficacy (lowest NNT) was with brodalumab and ixekizumab for PASI 90 at weeks 4, 8, and 12; ixekizumab for PASI 90/100 at week 16; and brodalumab for PASI 100 at week 12. After 48/52 weeks, risankizumab had the highest efficacy for PASI 90/100 overlapping with guselkumab, brodalumab, and ixekizumab for PASI 90 and with brodalumab and ixekizumab for PASI 100. Ixekizumab had the highest efficacy for DLQI (0,1) at week 12.ConclusionsBrodalumab and ixekizumab had the lowest NNTs for achieving PASI responses at early time points and were not significantly different than risankizumab and guselkumab after 48/52 weeks.
| S-EPMC9056462 | 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: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: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:ObjectiveTo comprehensively evaluate the efficacy, safety, patient symptoms, and quality-of-life (QoL) of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat as treatment for chronic constipation (CC).DesignSystematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis (MA). Literature searches were conducted on PubMed and Embase using the Ovid platform.MethodsSLR including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies was conducted to identify the overall efficacy and safety of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat. Thereafter, MA was performed using only RCTs. The number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) analyses were additionally conducted.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was efficacy regarding change in spontaneous bowel movements. Secondary outcomes included safety, constipation-related symptoms, and QoL.ResultsTwenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria for the SLR: 17 RCTs, 4 observational studies, and 3 single-arm trials. Feasibility assessment for the MA resulted in 14 studies available for safety data analysis, and 8 available for efficacy analysis, respectively. Three drugs showed similar efficacy in the MA and NNT analysis. However, the NNH analysis revealed distinct safety profiles: lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat were linked to the highest risk of nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, respectively.ConclusionThe current study provides an updated overview of the efficacy, safety, patient symptoms, and QoL of the three drugs with different mechanisms of action for CC treatment.The findings could help physicians adopt an individualized approach for treating patients with CC in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC10759335 | 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: Not available
| S-EPMC9719047 | biostudies-literature