Dataset Information

Reduction in number to treat versus number needed to treat

ABSTRACT:

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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01246-5.

SUBMITTER: Zhang C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7945324 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.