Number Needed to Treat in Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Trials

被引：6
作者：
Okwuokenye M. [1 ]
Zhang A. [1 ]
Pace A. [1 ]
Peace K.E. [2 ]
机构：
[1] Biogen, Cambridge, MA
[2] Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA
来源：
Neurology and Therapy | 2017年 / 6卷 / 1期
关键词：
Absolute risk difference; Annualized relapse rate; Controlled clinical trials; Number needed to treat; Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis; Statistical inference;
D O I：
10.1007/s40120-017-0063-y
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Clinicians are expected to select a therapy based on their appraisal of evidence on benefit-to-risk profiles of therapies. In the management of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), evidence is typically expressed in terms of risk (proportion) of event, risk reduction, relative and hazard rate reduction, or relative reduction in the mean number of magnetic resonance imaging lesions. Interpreting treatment effect using these measures from a RRMS clinical trial is fairly reliable; however, this might not be the case when treatment effect is expressed in terms of the number needed to treat (NNT). The objective of this review is to discuss the utility of NNT in RRMS trials. This article presents an overview of the methodological definition and characteristics of NNT as well as the relative merit of NNT use in RRMS controlled clinical trials, where endpoints are typically time-to-event and frequency of recurrent events. The authors caution against using NNT in multiple sclerosis, a clinically heterogeneous disease that can change course and severity unpredictably. The authors also caution against the use of NNT to interpret results in comparative trials where the absolute risk difference is not statistically significant, computing NNT using the time-to-event endpoint at intermediate time points, computing NNT using the annualized relapse rate, and comparing NNT across trials. © 2017, The Author(s).
引用
收藏
页码：1 / 9
页数：8
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] Laupacis A., Sackett D.L., Roberts R.S., An asssessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment, N Engl J Med, 318, pp. 1728-1733, (1988)
  • [2] Cook R.J., Sackett D.L., The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect, BMJ, 310, pp. 452-454, (1995)
  • [3] Altman D.G., Andersen P.K., Calculating the number needed to treat for trials where the outcome is time to an event, BMJ, 319, pp. 1492-1495, (1999)
  • [4] Moore R.A., Gavaghan D.J., Edwards J.E., Wiffen P., McQuay H.J., Pooling data for number needed to treat: no problems for apples, BMC Med Res Methodol, 2, (2002)
  • [5] Cates C.J., Simpson’s paradox and calculation of number needed to treat from meta-analysis, BMC Med Res Methodol, 2, (2002)
  • [6] Grieve A.P., The number needed to treat: a useful clinical measure or a case of the Emperor’s new clothes, Pharm Stat., 2, pp. 87-102, (2003)
  • [7] Hutton J.L., Number needed to treat: properties and problems, J R Stat Soc Ser A, 163, pp. 403-415, (2000)
  • [8] Hutton J.L., Number needed to treat and number needed to harm are not the best way to report and assess the results of randomised clinical trials, Br J Haematol, 146, pp. 27-30, (2009)
  • [9] Klawiter E.C., Cross A.H., Naismith R.T., The present efficacy of multiple sclerosis therapeutics: is the new 66% just the old 33%?, Neurology., 73, pp. 984-990, (2009)
  • [10] Zakaria M., Smoke and mirrors: limited value of relative risk reductions for assessing the benefits of disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis, Mult Scler Relat Disord., 4, pp. 187-191, (2015)
1234