Search

Background The ramped position facilitates mask ventilation and endotracheal intubation in patients with obesity. This study aimed to determine whether the ramped position improves supraglottic airway (SGA) insertion in patients with obesity. Methods In this prospective, randomized, single-center trial, 48 obese patients undergoing elective surgery were randomized into either ramped or sniffing position groups. The Ambu® AuraGainTM (Ambu A/S), a second-generation SGA, was used. The primary outcome was the time required for the AuraGain insertion. Secondary outcomes included ease and number of insertion attempts, oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP), and complications. The number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated to ensure ease of insertion. Results The time required for the AuraGain insertion was significantly shorter in the ramped group than in the sniffing group (13.0 [11.0, 16.0] vs. 24.0 [21.0, 28.0], P < 0.001). The insertion was easier in the ramped group than in the sniffing group (23/24 vs. 13/24, NNT = 2.4 [95% CI, 1.6, 5.0], P = 0.003). The first-attempt success rate was higher in the ramped group than in the sniffing group, although the difference was not statistically significant (22/24 vs. 18/24, P = 0.319). The OLP and postoperative complication rates were not significantly different between the groups. Conclusions The ramped position reduced the time required for the AuraGain insertion in obese patients while providing comparable airway sealing without increasing adverse events. Therefore, a ramped position may be a more suitable option for SGA insertion in this population.

BackgroundThe presence of oesophageal varices is associated with the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopic variceal ligation is used to prevent this occurrence but the ligation procedure may be associated with complications.ObjectivesTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of band ligation versus no intervention for primary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices.Search methodsWe combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 9 February 2019.Selection criteriaWe included randomised clinical trials comparing band ligation verus no intervention regardless of publication status, blinding, or language in the analyses of benefits and harms, and observational studies in the assessment of harms. Included participants had cirrhosis and oesophageal varices with no previous history of variceal bleeding.Data collection and analysisThree review authors extracted data independently. The primary outcome measures were all-cause mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. In addition, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTTB) for the primary outcomes . We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains; determined the certainty of the evidence using GRADE; and conducted sensitivity analyses including Trial Sequential Analysis.Main resultsSix randomised clinical trials involving 637 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One of the trials included an additional small number of participants (< 10% of the total) with non-cirrhotic portal hypertension/portal vein block. We classified one trial as at low risk of bias for the outcome, mortality and high risk of bias for the remaining outcomes; the five remaining trials were at high risk of bias for all outcomes. We downgraded the evidence to moderate certainty due to the bias risk. We gathered data on all primary outcomes from all trials. Seventy-one of 320 participants allocated to band ligation compared to 129 of 317 participants allocated to no intervention died (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70; I2 = 0%; NNTTB = 6 persons). In addition, band ligation was associated with reduced risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; 6 trials, 637 participants; I2 = 61%; NNTTB = 5 persons), serious adverse events (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.70; 6 trials, 637 participants; I2 = 44%; NNTTB = 4 persons), and variceal bleeding (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.69; 6 trials, 637 participants; I² = 56%; NNTTB = 5 persons). The non-serious adverse events reported in association with band ligation included oesophageal ulceration, dysphagia, odynophagia, retrosternal and throat pain, heartburn, and fever, and in the one trial involving participants with either small or large varices, the incidence of non-serious side effects in the banding group was much higher in those with small varices, namely ulcers: small versus large varices 30.5% versus 8.7%; heartburn 39.2% versus 17.4%. No trials reported on health-related quality of life.Two trials did not receive support from pharmaceutical companies; the remaining four trials did not provide information on this issue.Authors' conclusionsThis review found moderate-certainty evidence that, in patients with cirrhosis, band ligation of oesophageal varices reduces mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, variceal bleeding, and serious adverse events compared to no intervention. It is unlikely that further trials of band ligation versus no intervention would be considered ethical.

BACKGROUND:Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This review - one of four reviews on efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD - focuses on second-generation antidepressants (SGAs). OBJECTIVES:To assess the efficacy and safety of SGAs (in comparison with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy, melatonin or agomelatine, psychological therapies or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS:We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 19 June 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 August 2015). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and international trial registers (to 19 June 2018). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA:For efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we planned to include non-randomised studies. Eligible studies compared a SGA versus another SGA, placebo, light therapy, psychological therapy, melatonin, agomelatine or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare SGAs in combination with any of the comparator interventions versus placebo or the same comparator intervention as monotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. When data were sufficient, we conducted random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses. We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the Chi2 statistic and the Cochran Q. We used the I2 statistic to estimate the magnitude of heterogeneity. We assessed publication bias by using funnel plots.We rated the strength of the evidence using the system developed by the GRADE Working Group. MAIN RESULTS:We identified 3745 citations after de-duplication of search results and excluded 3619 records during title and abstract reviews. We assessed 126 full-text papers for inclusion in the review, of which four publications (on three RCTs) providing data from 1100 people met eligibility criteria for this review. All three RCTs had methodological limitations due to high attrition rates.Overall, moderate-quality evidence indicates that bupropion XL is an efficacious intervention for prevention of recurrence of depressive episodes in people with a history of SAD (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.72; 3 RCTs, 1100 participants). However, bupropion XL leads to greater risk of headaches (moderate-quality evidence), insomnia and nausea (both low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo. Numbers needed to treat for additional beneficial outcomes (NNTBs) vary by baseline risks. For a population with a yearly recurrence rate of 30%, the NNTB is 8 (95% CI 6 to 12). For populations with yearly recurrence rates of 50% and 60%, NNTBs are 5 (95% CI 4 to 7) and 4 (95% CI 3 to 6), respectively.We could find no studies on other SGAs and no studies comparing SGAs with other interventions of interest, such as light therapy, psychological therapies, melatonin or agomelatine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Available evidence indicates that bupropion XL is an effective intervention for prevention of recurrence of SAD. Nevertheless, even in a high-risk population, three out of four people will not benefit from preventive treatment with bupropion XL and will be at risk for harm. Clinicians need to discuss with patients advantages and disadvantages of preventive SGA treatment, and might want to consider offering other potentially efficacious interventions, which might confer a lower risk of adverse events. Given the lack of comparative evidence, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences.Future researchers need to assess the effectiveness and risk of harms of SGAs other than bupropion for prevention of SAD. Investigators also need to compare benefits and harms of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions.

Background: The number needed to treat (NNT) for efficacy and number needed to harm (NNH) for tolerability/safety were evaluated for adjunctive cariprazine in major depressive disorder (MDD)., Methods: Data were extracted from five randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of adjunctive cariprazine in MDD. NNTs (response, remission, severity shift) and NNHs (discontinuations due to adverse events [AEs], AEs, laboratory shifts) were determined in dose groupings; likelihood to be helped/harmed (LHH) was calculated., Results: NNTs (95 % CI) for adjunctive cariprazine versus placebo were statistically significant at week 6/early termination for response on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), as defined by a decrease in total score ≥ 50 % (doses ≥ 1 mg/d = 12 [9-21]; 1-2 mg/d = 12 [8-25]; 2-4.5 mg/d = 14 [9-43]) and other response/remission outcomes. NNHs for cariprazine versus placebo were generally ≥ 10 for AEs that were statistically significant; an apparent dose-response was seen for akathisia (lower dose = 24 [17-43]; higher dose = 9 [7-11]). LHHs were ≥ 1 (acceptable benefit/harm ratio) for MADRS total score response versus most important cariprazine AEs in most dose groupings. For response versus discontinuation because of an AE, adjunctive cariprazine 1-2 mg/d had a more favorable response/tolerability profile in indirect comparison with other approved atypical antipsychotics., Limitations: Post hoc analysis; indirect comparisons., Conclusions: Patients receiving adjunctive cariprazine encountered benefits more often than harms; NNT values at week 6/early termination were statistically significant versus placebo on response/remission outcomes across dose groupings from the five pooled studies. Adjunctive cariprazine was well tolerated; NNH values versus placebo were generally > 10, with better akathisia tolerability in the lower-dose range., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Leslie Citrome is a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at New York Medical College in Valhalla, New York. He has served as consultant to AbbVie/Allergan, Acadia, Adamas, Alkermes, Angelini, Astellas, Avanir, Axsome, Biogen, BioXcel, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cadent Therapeutics, Cerevel, Clinilabs, COMPASS, Delpor, Eisai, Enteris BioPharma, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, INmune Bio, Impel, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Karuna, Lundbeck, Luye, Lyndra, MapLight, Marvin, Medavante-ProPhase, Merck, Mitsubishi-Tanabe Pharma, Neumora, Neurocrine, Neurelis, Noema, Novartis, Noven, Otsuka, Ovid, Praxis, Recordati, Relmada, Reviva, Sage, Sumitomo/Sunovion, Supernus, Teva, University of Arizona, Vanda, Wells Fargo, and one-off ad hoc consulting for individuals/entities conducting marketing, commercial, or scientific scoping research; speaker for AbbVie/Allergan, Acadia, Alkermes, Angelini, Axsome, BioXcel, Eisai, Idorsia, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Lundbeck, Neurocrine, Noven, Otsuka, Recordati, Sage, Sunovion, Takeda, Teva, and CME activities organized by medical education companies such as Medscape, NACCME, NEI, Vindico, and Universities and Professional Organizations/Societies; owns stocks (small number of shares of common stock): Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, J & J, Merck, Pfizer purchased >10 years ago, stock options: Reviva; and receives royalties/publishing Income from Taylor & Francis (Editor-in-Chief, Current Medical Research and Opinion, 2022-date), Wiley (Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Clinical Practice, through end 2019), UpToDate (reviewer), Springer Healthcare (book), Elsevier (Topic Editor, Psychiatry, Clinical Therapeutics)., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Abstract Background The well-established benefit of Low-Dense-Lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-c) lowering treatments (LLTs) has led clinical guidelines to lower the cardiovascular prevention targets. Despite this, there is a surprising scarcity of real-world studies (RWS) evaluating whether recommendations are applied in the routine clinical management of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We therefore evaluated, in a large RWS, the pattern of LLTs use and the achievement of LDL-c targets in patients with T2D in Italian diabetes specialist clinics. Methods We collected data from 46 diabetes outpatient clinics (following 281,381 subjects), including 104,726 T2D patients, for whom use of LLTs between 2015 and 2016 was ascertained. We used the 2016 and 2019 European Atherosclerosis Society and European Society of Cardiology (EAS-ESC) guidelines to define cardiovascular risk categories, LDL-c targets, and the expected LDL-c reduction and cardiovascular benefit achievable with LLT intensification. Results 63,861 patients (61.0%) were on statin therapy, 9.2% of whom were also on ezetimibe. Almost all subjects were at high (29.3%) or very high (70.4%) cardiovascular risk, including 17% being in secondary prevention. Among very high-risk patients, 35% were not on statin despite half of them had LDL-c > 2.6 mmol/l, and only 15% of those on statins had LDL-c 1.8 mmol/l. Overall, 35% and 14% of subjects achieved the LDL-c targets as suggested by 2016 and 2019 EAS-ESC Guidelines, respectively. Based on anticipated response to treatment, we estimated that 38% of the entire population would require high-intensity-statin (HI-statin), 27% a combination of HI-statin plus ezetimibe, and 27% the addition of proprotein-convertase-subtilisin/kexin-9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. These LLT intensifications would reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events by 32%, from 23.511 to 16.022 events per 100.000 patients/10-years (incidence-rate-ratio 0.68; 95% C.I 0.67–0.70, p

Any pharmacological, invasive, surgical health intervention should have an added therapeutic value as well as the requirements of quality, safety, efficacy, to be considered as a medical device based on scientific evidence and of clinical utility for the patient. The intervention should be shared between the doctor and the patient who should have rigorous but simple tools to decide on the best therapy to undertake. Assessment of relative risk reduction is commonly used in the scientific literature to quantify both statistical and clinical significance. The reduction of the relative risk is independent of the baseline risk and is useful for comparing the results of trials conducted on populations at different risk levels. A biased reading of relative risk reduction can be used to emphasize the magnitude of the benefit for market innovation. The absolute risk reduction, on the other hand, is proportional to the magnitude of the baseline risk and is a more useful parameter for physicians and patients to understand the extent of benefit and harm, especially if the parameter is expressed in terms of the number needed to treat (NNT) or to harm (NNH). The mode of scientific communication is important for doctors' choices and patients' trust. Even true data can be fake in communication and perception by resorting to verbose paraphrases. Presenting the results of clinical trials in stochastic as well as statistical terms is useful for doctors and patients to verify whether it is worth practicing a certain treatment whose success sometimes has the probability of winning the lottery, also considering side effects and adverse events. One of the most important challenges in precision medicine will be understanding the relationship between probability and randomness.

Background: To evaluate the benefit-risk assessment of atogepant and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) vs. placebo based on the number needed to treat (NNT) and the number needed to harm (NNH) in a blended episodic migraine and chronic migraine (EM + CM) population., Methods: The NNT was calculated based on achievement of a ≥ 50% reduction in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline across 12 weeks. The NNH was calculated using the proportion of participants reporting a discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs). The primary analysis included data from studies of atogepant, erenumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab and fremanezumab., Results: In the primary analysis, the calculated NNT for atogepant 60 mg vs. placebo was 4.2 (95% credible interval (CrI) = 3.1-6.7), which was the lowest relative to the CGRP mAbs in the blended EM + CM population. Participants who received atogepant 60 mg or fremanezumab showed the most favorable NNH values (-1010 (95% Crl = 44 to ∞ to number needed to benefit 80) for atogepant) resulting from lower rates of discontinuation due to AEs compared with those receiving placebo., Conclusions: Atogepant demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile, with NNT and NNH values comparable (not statistically significant) with those of CGRP mAbs across all analyses., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: Jessica Ailani, MD, has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aeon, Amgen, Axsome, BioDelivery Sciences International, Biohaven, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Gore, Impel, Ipsen, Linpharma, Lundbeck, Merz, Miravo, Nesos, Neurolief, Pfizer, Satsuma, Teva, and Theranica. She has owned stock shares in Ctrl M, has provided editorial services for SELF magazine, and has received clinical trial grants from AbbVie, Biohaven, Eli Lilly and Company, Ipsen, Parema, Satsuma and Zosano. Anjana Lalla, MS, Pranav Gandhi, PhD, and Krisztian Nagy, MD, are employees of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock. Rashmi B. Halker Singh, MD, serves on the editorial board of Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, serves as deputy editor for Headache, and previously received grants for research support from Amgen and Eli Lilly. In the past 3 years, she has received consulting fees from AbbVie and Pfizer. Dagny Holle-Lee, MD, PhD, has received honoraria for consulting from AbbVie/Allergan, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Hormosan, Lundbeck, Novartis, Teva and Zuellig Pharma. Patricia Pozo-Rosich, MD, PhD, has received, in the past 3 years, personal fees for advisory boards and speaker panels from AbbVie, Amgen, Chiesi, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Medscape, Novartis, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceuticals, and for serving on a scientific advisory or data safety monitoring board for Lilly Foundation Spain; is the principal investigator for clinical trials sponsored by AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis and Teva; has received (through her group) grants from AbbVie, EraNet Neuron, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Novartis and Teva; and serves as an associate editor for Cephalalgia, Headache, Neurologia, The Journal of Headache and Pain, and Revista de Neurologia. Kari Kelton, PhD, and Cristiano Piron, MPH, are employees of Medical Decision Modeling Inc., which received payment from AbbVie for the analysis.

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, development of end-stage renal disease, and all-cause mortality. It affects around 10% of the population worldwide. The prevalence of hypertension in people with CKD ranges from 22% in stage 1 to 80% in stage 4. Elevated arterial blood pressure is one of the major independent risk factors for adverse cardiovascular events. Thereby, reducing blood pressure to below standard targets may be beneficial but could also increase the risk of adverse events. The optimal blood pressure target in people with hypertension and CKD remains unknown., Objectives: Primary: to compare the effects of standard and lower-than-standard blood pressure targets for hypertension in people with chronic kidney disease on mortality and morbidity outcomes. Secondary: to assess the magnitude of reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, the proportion of participants reaching blood pressure targets, and the number of drugs necessary to achieve the assigned target., Search Methods: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, one other database, and two trial registers up to 8 February 2023. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. We applied no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with hypertension and CKD that provided at least twelve months' follow-up. Eligible interventions compared lower targets for systolic/diastolic blood pressure (130/80 mmHg or lower) to standard targets for blood pressure (140 to 160/90 to 100 mmHg or lower). Participants were adults with CKD and elevated blood pressure documented in a standard way on at least two occasions, or already receiving treatment for elevated blood pressure., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our critical outcomes were: total mortality, total serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and progression to end-stage renal disease. Important outcomes were: participant withdrawals due to adverse effects, and number of participants with a doubling of serum creatinine level or at least a 50% reduction in the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at the end of the study. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for the critical outcomes. This review received no funding., Main Results: We included six RCTs that contributed data for meta-analysis, involving 7348 participants overall (range 840 to 4733 people per study). The mean follow-up was 3.6 years (range 1.0 to 8.0 years). Three studies were publicly funded, two were privately funded, and one had both public and private funding. All RCTs provided individual participant data. None of the included studies blinded participants or clinicians because of the need to titrate antihypertensive drugs to reach a specific blood pressure target. However, an independent committee blinded to group allocation assessed clinical events in all studies. Critical outcomes. Compared with standard blood pressure targets, lower targets likely result in little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.06; 6 studies, 7348 participants), total serious adverse events (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 6 studies, 7348 participants), and total cardiovascular events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; 5 studies, 6508 participants), all with moderate-certainty evidence. Compared with standard blood pressure targets, lower targets may result in little to no difference in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.16; 6 studies, 7348 participants) and progression to end-stage renal disease (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11; 4 studies, 4788 participants), both with low-certainty evidence. Important outcomes. We found little to no differences in: participant withdrawals due to adverse effects; and the number of participants with a doubling of serum creatinine level, or at least a 50% reduction in GFR at the end of the study. Exploratory outcomes. Compared to the standard blood pressure target groups, participants in the lower target groups achieved lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure values after one year, and required a higher number of antihypertensive drugs at the end of the studies. A higher proportion of participants in the standard blood pressure target groups achieved the targets they were assigned than did participants in the intensive target groups., Authors' Conclusions: Compared to a standard blood pressure target, lower blood pressure targets probably result in little to no difference in total mortality, total serious adverse events, and total cardiovascular events, and may result in little to no difference in total cardiovascular mortality or in the progression to end-stage renal disease in people with hypertension and CKD. However, the evidence underpinning these conclusions has several limitations. All studies were open design, blood pressure measurement was performed at a medical office, and there was scant information about adverse events. Future research should include high-quality adverse event data, report results for people with different levels of proteinuria, and consider out-of-office blood pressure monitoring. Several studies are ongoing, and may provide new evidence for this topic in the near future., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Competing Interests: None declared.

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., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Considering clinical benefits of new combination therapies for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC), this study aims to calculate the number needed to treat (NTT) and the cost of preventing an event (COPE) for pembrolizumab plus axitinib (PþA), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NþI) as first-line treatments, from the Brazilian private perspective. Methods: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) data for intermediate- and poor-risk groups were obtained from KEYNOTE-426 and CHECKMATE-214 trials for PþA and NþI, respectively, versus sunitinib as mRCC first-line treatment. Results: Considering a 12-month time horizon, 6 patients should be treated with PþA to prevent one death with sunitinib use, resulting in a COPE of 3,893,903 BRL. Using NþI, NNT for 12-month OS rate was 13 compared to sunitinib, with a COPE of 6,357,965 BRL. Regarding PFS data, NNT was also 6 when comparing PþA versus sunitinib, with an estimated COPE of 3,893,903 BRL. Estimated NNT was 20 comparing NþI and sunitinib, resulting in a COPE of 10,172,744 BRL. Cost differences between two treatment options, reached more than 6 million BRL for PFS, and 2 million BRL for OS. Conclusion: At the 12-month landmark, PþA suggests better economic scenario versus NþI as firstline mRCC treatment option for intermediate- and poor-risk groups, through an indirect comparison using sunitinib as a common comparator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite using identical evidence to support practice guidelines for lipid-lowering treatment in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), it is unclear to what extent the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety, 2016 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), 2020 Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society guidelines differ in grading and assigning levels of evidence and classes of recommendations (LOE/class) at a population level.Methods: We included 7262 participants, aged 45 to 75 years, without history of CVD from the prospective population-based Rotterdam Study. Per guideline, proportions of the population recommended statin therapy by LOE/class, sensitivity and specificity for CVD events, and numbers needed to treat at 10 years were calculated.Results: Mean age was 61.1 (SD 6.9) years; 58.2% were women. American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety, USPSTF, Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society strongly recommended statin initiation in respective 59.4%, 40.2%, 45.2%, 73.7%, and 42.1% of the eligible population based on high-quality evidence. Sensitivity for CVD events for treatment recommendations supported with strong LOE/class was 86.3% for American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety (IA or IB), 69.4% for USPSTF (USPSTF-B), 74.5% for Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense (strong for), 93.3% for Canadian Cardiovascular Society (strong), and 66.6% for European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (IA). Specificity was highest for the USPSTF at 45.3% and lowest for European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society at 10.0%. Estimated numbers needed to treat at 10 years for those with the strongest LOE/class were ranging from 20 to 26 for moderate-intensity and 12 to 16 for high-intensity statins.Conclusions: Sensitivity, specificity, and numbers needed to treat at 10 years for assigned LOE/class varied greatly among 5 CVD prevention guidelines. The level of variability seems to be driven by differences in how the evidence is graded and translated into LOE/class underlying the treatment recommendations by different professional societies. Efforts towards harmonizing evidence grading systems for clinical guidelines in primary prevention of CVD may reduce ambiguity and reinforce updated evidence-based recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Regression models for continuous, binary, nominal, and ordinal outcomes almost completely rely on parametric models, whereas time-to-event outcomes are mainly analyzed by Cox's Proportional Hazards model, an essentially non-parametric method. This is done despite a long list of disadvantages that have been reported for the hazard ratio, and also for the odds ratio, another effect measure sometimes used for time-to-event modelling. In this paper, we propose a parametric proportional risk model for time-to-event outcomes in a two-group situation. Modelling explicitly a risk instead of a hazard or an odds solves the current interpretational and technical problems of the latter two effect measures. The model further allows for computing absolute effect measures like risk differences or numbers needed to treat. As an additional benefit, results from the model can also be communicated on the original time scale, as an accelerated or a prolongated failure time thus facilitating interpretation for a non-technical audience. Parameter estimation by maximum likelihood, while properly accounting for censoring, is straightforward and can be implemented in each statistical package that allows coding and maximizing a univariate likelihood function. We illustrate the model with an example from a randomized controlled trial on efficacy of a new glucose-lowering drug for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and give the results of a small simulation study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considering clinical benefits of new combination therapies for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC), this study aims to calculate the number needed to treat (NTT) and the cost of preventing an event (COPE) for pembrolizumab plus axitinib (P + A), and nivolumab plus ipilimumab (N + I) as first-line treatments, from the Brazilian private perspective. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) data for intermediate- and poor-risk groups were obtained from KEYNOTE-426 and CHECKMATE-214 trials for P + A and N + I, respectively, versus sunitinib as mRCC first-line treatment. Considering a 12-month time horizon, 6 patients should be treated with P + A to prevent one death with sunitinib use, resulting in a COPE of 3,893,903 BRL. Using N + I, NNT for 12-month OS rate was 13 compared to sunitinib, with a COPE of 6,357,965 BRL. Regarding PFS data, NNT was also 6 when comparing P + A versus sunitinib, with an estimated COPE of 3,893,903 BRL. Estimated NNT was 20 comparing N + I and sunitinib, resulting in a COPE of 10,172,744 BRL. Cost differences between two treatment options, reached more than 6 million BRL for PFS, and 2 million BRL for OS. At the 12-month landmark, P + A suggests better economic scenario versus N + I as first-line mRCC treatment option for intermediate- and poor-risk groups, through an indirect comparison using sunitinib as a common comparator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is generally believed that pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE) is underused. However, previous studies have not shown associations between increased prophylaxis administration and reductions in VTE. We here investigated prophylaxis administration and VTE incidence among trauma patients at our facility to determine whether to further increase prophylaxis administration after implementation of a standardized monitoring protocol. Univariate analyses and regression models were used to evaluate the protocol's effect on VTE, identify clinical factors associated with VTE and with receiving prophylaxis, and identify over- or under-prophylaxed patients. A final prophylaxis rate of 71.2% was achieved, an increase from the 40.8% reported by the Trauma Quality Improvement Program in 2015, with no accompanying reduction in VTE (1.5% pre and postintervention). Factors that identified patients at lower probability of receiving prophylaxis were those that increased bleeding risk: severe head injuries (odds ratio [OR] 5 0.13) and preexisting bleeding (OR5 0.69) and renal/kidney (OR 50.46) disorders. A large group of patients was both at increased odds of receiving prophylaxis and at low risk of VTE, representing a group that may be considered for nonpharmacologic options. Examination of current prophylaxis practices and identification of underuse or overuse is beneficial before expending effort to increase prophylaxis administration to reduce VTE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The relationship between cholesterol levels and risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is uncertain. We set out to determine the effect of PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibition on the risk of VTE, explore potential mechanisms, and examine the efficacy in subgroups with clinically and genetically defined risk.Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of the FOURIER trial (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk) testing whether evolocumab reduces the risk of VTE events (deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism). Data from FOURIER and ODYSSEY OUTCOMES (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment with Alirocumab) were then combined in a meta-analysis to assess the class effect of PCSK9 inhibition on the risk of VTE. We also analyzed baseline lipids in FOURIER to investigate potential mechanisms explaining the reduction in VTE with evolocumab. Last, an exploratory genetic analysis was performed in FOURIER to determine whether a VTE polygenic risk score could identify high-risk patients who would derive the greatest VTE reduction from evolocumab.Results: In FOURIER, the hazard ratio (HR) for VTE with evolocumab was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.50-1.00; P=0.05), with no effect in the 1st year (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.57-1.62]) but a 46% reduction (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.33-0.88]; P=0.014) beyond 1 year. A meta-analysis of FOURIER and ODYSSEY OUTCOMES demonstrated a 31% relative risk reduction in VTE with PCSK9 inhibition (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53-0.90]; P=0.007). There was no relation between baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and magnitude of VTE risk reduction. In contrast, in patients with higher baseline lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels, evolocumab reduced Lp(a) by 33 nmol/L and risk of VTE by 48% (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.30-0.89]; P=0.017), whereas, in patients with lower baseline Lp(a) levels, evolocumab reduced Lp(a) by only 7 nmol/L and had no effect on VTE risk (Pinteraction 0.087 for HR; Pheterogeneity 0.037 for absolute risk reduction). Modeled as a continuous variable, there was a significant interaction between baseline Lp(a) concentration and magnitude of VTE risk reduction (Pinteraction=0.04). A polygenic risk score identified patients who were at >2-fold increased risk for VTE and who derived greater relative (Pinteraction=0.04) and absolute VTE reduction (Pheterogeneity=0.009) in comparison with those without high genetic risk.Conclusions: PCSK9 inhibition significantly reduces the risk of VTE. Lp(a) reduction may be an important mediator of this effect, a finding of particular interest given the ongoing development of potent Lp(a) inhibitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Japanese encephalitis (JE) virus is the leading vaccine-preventable cause of encephalitis in Asia. For most travelers, JE risk is very low but varies based on several factors, including travel duration, location, and activities. To aid public health officials, health care providers, and travelers evaluate the worth of administering/ receiving pre-travel JE vaccinations, we estimated the numbers-needed-to-treat to prevent a case and the cost-effectiveness ratios of JE vaccination for U.S. travelers in different risk categories. We used a decision tree model to estimate cost per case averted from a societal and traveler perspective for hypothetical cohorts of vaccinated and unvaccinated travelers. Risk Category I included travelers planning to spend ≥1 month in JE-endemic areas, Risk Category II were shorter-term (<1 month) travelers spending ≥20% of their time doing outdoor activities in rural areas, and Risk Category III were all remaining travelers. We performed sensitivity analyses including examining changes in cost-effectiveness with 10- and 100-fold increases in incidence and medical treatment costs. The numbers-needed-to-treat to prevent a case and cost per case averted were approximately 0.7 million and $0.6 billion for Risk Category I, 1.6 million and $1.2 billion for Risk Category II, and 9.8 million and $7.6 billion for Risk Category III. Increases of 10-fold and 100-fold in disease incidence proportionately decreased cost-effectiveness ratios. Similar levels of increases in medical treatment costs resulted in negligible changes in cost-effectiveness ratios. Numbers-needed-to-treat and cost-effectiveness ratios associated with preventing JE cases in U.S. travelers by vaccination varied greatly by risk category and disease incidence. While cost effectiveness ratios are not the sole rationale for decision-making regarding JE vaccination, the results presented here can aid in making such decisions under very different risk and cost scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The number needed to treat (NNT) is an absolute effect measure that has been used to assess beneficial and harmful effects of medical interventions. Several methods can be used to calculate NNTs, and they should be applied depending on the different study characteristics, such as the design and type of variable used to measure outcomes. Whether or not the most recommended methods have been applied to calculate NNTs in studies published in the medical literature is yet to be determined. The aim of this study is to assess whether the methods used to calculate NNTs in studies published in medical journals are in line with basic methodological recommendations. Methods The top 25 high-impact factor journals in the “General and/or Internal Medicine” category were screened to identify studies assessing pharmacological interventions and reporting NNTs. Studies were categorized according to their design and the type of variables. NNTs were assessed for completeness (baseline risk, time horizon, and confidence intervals [CIs]). The methods used for calculating NNTs in selected studies were compared to basic methodological recommendations published in the literature. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results The search returned 138 citations, of which 51 were selected. Most were meta-analyses (n = 23, 45.1%), followed by clinical trials (n = 17, 33.3%), cohort (n = 9, 17.6%), and case–control studies (n = 2, 3.9%). Binary variables were more common (n = 41, 80.4%) than time-to-event (n = 10, 19.6%) outcomes. Twenty-six studies (51.0%) reported only NNT to benefit (NNTB), 14 (27.5%) reported both NNTB and NNT to harm (NNTH), and 11 (21.6%) reported only NNTH. Baseline risk (n = 37, 72.5%), time horizon (n = 38, 74.5%), and CI (n = 32, 62.7%) for NNTs were not always reported. Basic methodological recommendations to calculate NNTs were not followed in 15 studies (29.4%). The proportion of studies applying non-recommended methods was particularly high for meta-analyses (n = 13, 56.5%). Conclusions A considerable proportion of studies, particularly meta-analyses, applied methods that are not in line with basic methodological recommendations. Despite their usefulness in assisting clinical decisions, NNTs are uninterpretable if incompletely reported, and they may be misleading if calculating methods are inadequate to study designs and variables under evaluation. Further research is needed to confirm the present findings.

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.

Multiple recent pharmacological clinical trials in neuropathic pain have failed to show beneficial effect of drugs with previously demonstrated efficacy, and estimates of drug efficacy seems to have decreased with accumulation of newer trials. However, this has not been systematically assessed. Here, we analyze time-dependent changes in estimated treatment effect size in pharmacological trials together with factors that may contribute to decreases in estimated effect size. This study is a secondary analysis of data from a previous published NeuPSIG systematic review and meta-analysis, updated to include studies published up till March 2017. We included double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials examining the effect of drugs for which we had made strong or weak recommendations for use in neuropathic pain in the previously published review. As the primary outcome, we used an aggregated number needed to treat for 50% pain reduction (alternatively 30% pain reduction or moderate pain relief). Analyses involved 128 trials. Number needed to treat values increased from around 2 to 4 in trials published between 1982 and 1999 to much higher (less effective) values in studies published from 2010 onwards. Several factors that changed over time, such as larger study size, longer study duration, and more studies reporting 50% or 30% pain reduction, correlated with the decrease in estimated drug effect sizes. This suggests that issues related to the design, outcomes, and reporting have contributed to changes in the estimation of treatment effects. These factors are important to consider in design and interpretation of individual study data and in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number needed to treat (NNT) with brentuximab vedotin consolidation therapy post-autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) versus placebo in the phase 3 AETHERA trial to avoid one additional event of disease progression/death was evaluated. AETHERA included 329 Hodgkin lymphoma patients at increased risk of progression post-ASCT who received brentuximab vedotin 1.8 mg/kg (n = 165) or placebo (n = 164) on day 1 of each 21-d cycle (up to 16 cycles). Over 60 months, the NNT with brentuximab vedotin ranged from 4.08 to 7.79 for the intent-to-treat population, 3.18–6.07 for patients with ≥2 risk factors, and 2.98–5.65 for patients with ≥3 risk factors. At various time points, and dependent on the risk group, 3–8 patients would need to be treated with brentuximab vedotin consolidation therapy to prevent a disease progression/death, compared with placebo. Patients with increased risk of relapse may benefit most from brentuximab vedotin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose We systematically evaluated the Bosniak classification system with malignancy rates of each Bosniak category, and assessed the effectiveness related to surgical treatment and oncologic outcome based on recurrence and/or metastasis. Materials and Methods In a systematic review according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement and the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) criteria, we selected 39 publications for inclusion in this analysis and categorized them into 1) surgical cohorts—all cysts treated surgically and 2) radiological cohorts—cysts with surgical treatment or radiological followup. Results A total of 3,036 complex renal cysts were categorized into Bosniak II, IIF, III and IV. In surgical and radiological cohorts pooled estimates showed a malignancy prevalence of 0.51 (0.44, 0.58) in Bosniak III and 0.89 (0.83, 0.92) in Bosniak IV cysts, respectively. Stable Bosniak IIF cysts showed a malignancy rate of less than 1% during radiological followup (surveillance). Bosniak IIF cysts, which showed reclassification to the Bosniak III/IV category during radiological followup (12%), showed malignancy in 85%, comparable to Bosniak IV cysts. The estimated surgical number needed to treat to avoid metastatic disease of Bosniak III and IV cysts was 140 and 40, respectively. Conclusions The effectiveness of the Bosniak classification system for complex renal cysts was high in categories II, IIF and IV, but low in category III, and 49% of Bosniak III cysts was overtreated because of a benign outcome. This surgical overtreatment combined with the excellent outcome for Bosniak III cysts may suggest that surveillance is a rational alternative to surgery. This will require further study to assess whether surveillance of Bosniak III cysts will prove safe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Der Urologe A is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: The number needed to treat (NNT) is an absolute effect measure that has been used to assess beneficial and harmful effects of medical interventions. Several methods can be used to calculate NNTs, and they should be applied depending on the different study characteristics, such as the design and type of variable used to measure outcomes. Whether or not the most recommended methods have been applied to calculate NNTs in studies published in the medical literature is yet to be determined. The aim of this study is to assess whether the methods used to calculate NNTs in studies published in medical journals are in line with basic methodological recommendations.Methods: The top 25 high-impact factor journals in the "General and/or Internal Medicine" category were screened to identify studies assessing pharmacological interventions and reporting NNTs. Studies were categorized according to their design and the type of variables. NNTs were assessed for completeness (baseline risk, time horizon, and confidence intervals [CIs]). The methods used for calculating NNTs in selected studies were compared to basic methodological recommendations published in the literature. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.Results: The search returned 138 citations, of which 51 were selected. Most were meta-analyses (n = 23, 45.1%), followed by clinical trials (n = 17, 33.3%), cohort (n = 9, 17.6%), and case-control studies (n = 2, 3.9%). Binary variables were more common (n = 41, 80.4%) than time-to-event (n = 10, 19.6%) outcomes. Twenty-six studies (51.0%) reported only NNT to benefit (NNTB), 14 (27.5%) reported both NNTB and NNT to harm (NNTH), and 11 (21.6%) reported only NNTH. Baseline risk (n = 37, 72.5%), time horizon (n = 38, 74.5%), and CI (n = 32, 62.7%) for NNTs were not always reported. Basic methodological recommendations to calculate NNTs were not followed in 15 studies (29.4%). The proportion of studies applying non-recommended methods was particularly high for meta-analyses (n = 13, 56.5%).Conclusions: A considerable proportion of studies, particularly meta-analyses, applied methods that are not in line with basic methodological recommendations. Despite their usefulness in assisting clinical decisions, NNTs are uninterpretable if incompletely reported, and they may be misleading if calculating methods are inadequate to study designs and variables under evaluation. Further research is needed to confirm the present findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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., (© 2023 The Authors. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Objective: To evaluate the short-term efficacy of venlafaxine extended release (ER) 75-225 mg/day compared with placebo for treating major depressive disorder (MDD) and to examine associations between baseline characteristics and efficacy outcomes in MDD patients treated with venlafaxine ER 75-225 mg/day.Research Design and Methods: This meta-analysis included published and unpublished short-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Wyeth/Pfizer sponsored studies of venlafaxine ER at doses up to 225 mg/day in adults with MDD.Clinical Trial Registration: All trials were conducted before trial registration became mandatory.Main Outcome Measures: Change from baseline in the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D17) total score was analyzed over time using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures with terms for study, treatment group, visit, interaction between treatment group and visit, and baseline score as a covariate. Associations between baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and the probability of HAM-D17 response and remission at week 8 were evaluated using logistic regression models, with terms for study, treatment group, and baseline characteristics in the models. Safety and tolerability was assessed based on adverse events (AEs) and discontinuations due to AEs.Results: The full analysis set included 1087 patients from five studies that fulfilled selection criteria. Statistically significant separation between venlafaxine ER and placebo groups for HAM-D17 total score was seen at week 2 and all subsequent assessments (p-values <.0001). There was no significant interaction between treatment and baseline HAM-D17 total score. Probability of HAM-D17 remission at week 8 decreased with increasing baseline HAM-D17 total score (p = .0012; OR: 0.94); however, baseline HAM-D17 total score did not predict response. Discontinuations due to AEs were reported for 9.4% of venlafaxine-ER-treated patients compared with 3.6% of placebo-treated patients. Key limitations: Five studies met the criteria for inclusion. Several differences in design between included studies limited the analysis: one study did not include a week 3 assessment (the week 3 time point was therefore dropped from the analysis), one study had two venlafaxine ER dose arms, which were combined into one group for the meta-analysis, and mixed- and flexible-dose studies were pooled.Conclusions: Venlafaxine ER 75-225 mg/day effectively reduced symptoms of depression in patients with MDD overall and in patients with either lower (≤23) or higher (>23) HAM-D17 total score at baseline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]