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.

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.

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.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

It is often reported that established COVID-19 vaccines have an efficacy of 70 % or more in preventing serious illnesses or deaths. On the other hand, critics claim that the vaccines have actually shown less than 1 % efficacy in studies and are therefore of little use. Which statement is correct? And where do these discrepancies come from?, Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Absolute treatment effects-i.e. numbers needed to treat (NNTs)-of novel antidiabetic drugs for cardiovascular outcomes have not been comprehensively evaluated. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of digitalized individual patient outcomes to display and compare absolute treatment effects., Methods and Results: Individual patient time-to-event information from Kaplan-Meier plots of cardiovascular mortality (CM) and/or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) endpoints from cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) evaluating dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors vs. placebo were digitalized using WebPlotDigitizer 4.2 and the R code of Guyot et al.; Weibull regression models were generated, validated, and used to estimate NNT for individual trials; random-effects meta-analysis generated Meta-NNT with 95% confidence intervals. Sixteen CVOTs reported time-to-event information (14 in primary diabetes and 2 in primary heart failure populations). Thirteen studies including 96 860 patients were meta-analysed for CM: At the median follow-up of 30 months, Meta-NNTs were 178 (64 to ∞ to -223) for DPP-4 inhibitors, 261 (158 to 745) for GLP-1 receptor agonists, and 118 (68 to 435) for SGLT2 inhibitors. Ten studies including 96 128 patients were meta-analysed for HHF: At the median follow-up of 29 months, estimated Meta-NNTs were -644 (229 to ∞ to -134) for DPP-4 inhibitors, 441 (184 to ∞ to -1100) for GLP-1 receptor agonists, and 126 (91 to 208) for SGLT2 inhibitors. SGLT2 inhibitors were especially effective for HHF in primary heart failure populations [Meta-NNT 25 (19 to 39)] vs. primary diabetes populations [Meta-NNT 233 (167 to 385)] at 16 months of follow-up., Conclusions: We found only modest treatment benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for CM and HHF in primary type 2 diabetes mellitus populations. In primary heart failure populations, SGLT2 inhibitor benefits were substantial and comparable in efficacy to established heart failure medication., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Interpreting study results is an essential component of decision-making. Both laypeople and healthcare professionals often misinterpret treatment effects that are presented as relative risk reduction. Therefore, we developed and piloted a web-based tool to teach the difference between relative and absolute risk reductions. This project follows the UKMRC-guidance for complex interventions. The tool was developed based on adult learning and design theories. This was followed by a qualitative feasibility study focusing on acceptance, applicability, and comprehensibility with healthcare professionals and laypersons. We conducted think-aloud and semi-structured interviews and analysed them using qualitative content analysis. In addition, we explored calculation skills. Between January 2020 and April 2021, we conducted 22 interviews with 8 laypeople and 14 healthcare professionals from different settings. Overall, the tool proved to be feasible and relevant. With regard to comprehension, we observed an awareness of the interpretation of risk reduction, presented therapy effects were questioned more critically, and the influence of relative effects was recognized. Nevertheless, there were comprehension problems in some of the participants, especially with calculations in connection with low mathematical skills. The tool can be used to improve the interpretation of risk reductions in various target groups and to supplement existing educational programs.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.