Mark Pletcher 6/10/2011 Quantifying Treatment Effects.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Números.
Advertisements

EuroCondens SGB E.
CALENDAR.
CHAPTER 18 The Ankle and Lower Leg
Learning to show the remainder
The 5S numbers game..
The basics for simulations
Factoring Quadratics — ax² + bx + c Topic
Niacin Use in Patients with Low HDL-Cholesterol Receiving Intensive Statin Therapy William E. Boden, MD, FACC, FAHA Jeffrey Probstfield, MD, FACC, FAHA.
Percutaneous Closure of the Left Atrial Appendage versus Warfarin Therapy for Prevention of Stroke in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized.
MM4A6c: Apply the law of sines and the law of cosines.
The Home INR Study (THINRS): Home INR Monitoring as Effective as Clinic-Based Care AK Jacobson, MD American Heart Association 2008 Scientific Sessions:
FAST STATS A 5-minute Review for the Evidence-Based Practitioner.
Reporting drugs and treatments Thomas Abraham JMSC 6090.
2011 WINNISQUAM COMMUNITY SURVEY YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR GRADES 9-12 STUDENTS=1021.
Before Between After.
2011 FRANKLIN COMMUNITY SURVEY YOUTH RISK BEHAVIOR GRADES 9-12 STUDENTS=332.
Subtraction: Adding UP
1 Non Deterministic Automata. 2 Alphabet = Nondeterministic Finite Accepter (NFA)
Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk.
1 Non Deterministic Automata. 2 Alphabet = Nondeterministic Finite Accepter (NFA)
Study by: Granger et al. NEJM, September 2011,Vol No. 11 Presented by: Amelia Crawford PA-S2 Apixaban versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.
Extension Article by Dr Tim Kenny
Critical Appraisal of an Article on Therapy. Why critical appraisal? Why therapy?
Clinical trial The Way We Make Progress Against Disease Prof. Ashry Gad Mohamed Prof. of Epidemiology College of Medicine & KKUH.
Mathew J. Reeves BVSc, PhD Associate Professor, Epidemiology
BS Evidence Based Medicine And Atrial Fibrillation.
Jonathan A. Edlow, MD, FACEP Transient Ischemic Attack Patient Update: The Optimal Management of Emergency Department Patients With Suspected Cerebral.
The Bahrain Branch of the UK Cochrane Centre In Collaboration with Reyada Training & Management Consultancy, Dubai-UAE Cochrane Collaboration and Systematic.
Accounting for Clinical Heterogeneity in Comparative Effectiveness Research How Can One Examine a Trial for Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect (HTE)? The.
 Mean: true average  Median: middle number once ranked  Mode: most repetitive  Range : difference between largest and smallest.
Evidence Based Medicine and Medical Decision Making Iztok Hozo, Professor of Mathematics Indiana University Northwest European School of Oncology How to.
ACTIVE Clopidogrel plus Aspirin versus Aspirin in Patients Unsuitable for Warfarin.
Marshall University School of Medicine Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology BMS 617 Lecture 8 – Comparing Proportions Marshall University Genomics.
Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 10 November 2011 Michael.
Critiquing for Evidence-based Practice: Therapy or Prevention M8120 Columbia University Suzanne Bakken, RN, DNSc.
Understanding real research 4. Randomised controlled trials.
EBCP. Random vs Systemic error Random error: errors in measurement that lead to measured values being inconsistent when repeated measures are taken. Ie:
Laura Mucci, Pharm.D. Candidate Mercer University 2012 Preceptor: Dr. Rahimi February 2012.
November 5, 2014 Matthew Tuck, MD Hospitalist, Veterans Affairs Medical Center Assistant Professor of Medicine, George Washington University.
Which Treatment ? For a patient, 64-year-old male For a patient, 64-year-old male No HT, DM, Heart failure, LV dysfunction No HT, DM, Heart failure, LV.
Literature Appraisal Effectiveness of Therapy. Measures of treatment effect Statistical significance Odds ratio Relative risk Absolute risk reduction.
Lecture 9: Analysis of intervention studies Randomized trial - categorical outcome Measures of risk: –incidence rate of an adverse event (death, etc) It.
A 1 Physician’s Perspective: The Impact. A 2 Clinician’s Perspective Bartolome R. Celli, MD Professor of Medicine Tufts University Boston, MA.
Polypill x Aspirin Project Groups 3 and 4
Risks & Odds Professor Kate O’Donnell. When talking about the chance of something happening, e.g. death, hip fracture, we can talk about: risk and relative.
Vanderbilt Sports Medicine Evidence-Base Medicine How to Practice and Teach EBM Chapter 5 : Therapy.
Hypothesis: baseline risk status of the patients and proximity to a recent cardiovascular event influence the response to dual anti-platelet therapy. Patients.
EBM --- Journal Reading Presenter :林禹君 Date : 2005/10/26.
Biostatistics Board Review Parul Chaudhri, DO Family Medicine Faculty Development Fellow, UPMC St Margaret March 5, 2016.
Risk Different ways of assessing it. Objectives Be able to define and calculate: Absolute risk (reduction) Relative risk (reduction) Number needed to.
The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) – 3 Trial
2 3 انواع مطالعات توصيفي (Descriptive) تحليلي (Analytic) مداخله اي (Interventional) مشاهده اي ( Observational ) كارآزمايي باليني كارآزمايي اجتماعي كارآزمايي.
Number Needed to Treat Alex Djuricich, MD Indiana University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Ambulatory Rotation
HelpDesk Answers Synthesizing the Evidence
EBM Workshop: Treatment
Why this talk? you will be seeing a lot of GRADE
Confidence Intervals and p-values
AIM HIGH Niacin plus Statin to prevent vascular events
CANTOS: The Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study
SPIRE Program: Studies of PCSK9 Inhibition and the Reduction of Vascular Events Unanticipated attenuation of LDL-c lowering response to humanized PCSK9.
ACTIVE A Effects of Addition of Clopidogrel to Aspirin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation who are Unsuitable for Vitamin K Antagonists.
مقدمه‌ای بر طب مبتنی بر شواهد
Dabigatran vs Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation – Results
remember to round it to whole numbers
1 Information Mastery Skills Calculating RR, RRR, ARR and NNTs A. Bornstein, MD, FACC Assistant Professor of Medicine Weil Cornell Medical College New.
Interpreting Basic Statistics
ASPIRE CLASS 6: Interpreting Results and Writing an Abstract
SPIRE Program: Studies of PCSK9 Inhibition and the Reduction of Vascular Events Unanticipated attenuation of LDL-c lowering response to humanized PCSK9.
Medical Statistics Exam Technique and Coaching, Part 2 Richard Kay Statistical Consultant RK Statistics Ltd 22/09/2019.
Presentation transcript:

Mark Pletcher 6/10/2011 Quantifying Treatment Effects

Rationale Any treatment involves tradeoffs Weigh benefits against risks/costs Benefit $$ Harm

Rationale Sometimes the decision is difficult! Benefit $$ Harm

Rationale Benefit $$ Harm How big is this box? And this one?

Rationale Tests can help us understand who is most likely to benefit from a treatment Benefit $$ Harm How big is this box? And this one?

Rationale Tests can help us understand who is most likely to benefit from a treatment Rapid strep to decide who will benefit from penicillin BNP to decide who will benefit from furosemide CRP to decide who will benefit from statins

Rationale The utility of a test depends on: How beneficial the treatment is How harmful the treatment is How much the test tells us about these benefits and harms in a given individual Risk of harm from the test itself

Rationale The utility of a test depends on: How beneficial the treatment is How harmful the treatment is How much the test tells us about these benefits and harms in a given individual Risk of harm from the test itself The topic for this lecture

Outline Is an intervention really beneficial? How beneficial is it? Pitfalls Examples

Is the intervention beneficial? Randomized trials compare an outcome in treated to untreated persons MI in 10% vs. 15% Duration of flu symptoms 3 vs. 5 days

Is the intervention beneficial? Randomized trials compare an outcome in treated to untreated persons MI in 10% vs. 15% Duration of flu symptoms 3 vs. 5 days *Statistics* are used to decide if should reject the null hypothesis and accept that the intervention is beneficial

Is the intervention beneficial? But statistics cannot help us interpret effect size

Quantifying the Benefit Effect size How do we summarize and communicate this? What is really important for clinicians and policymakers?

Quantifying the Benefit Effect size How do we summarize and communicate this? What is really important for clinicians and policymakers? Example: MI in 10% vs. 15% Q: What do we do with these two numbers?

Quantifying the Benefit Two simple possibilities: 10% / 15% = % - 10% = 5%

Quantifying the Benefit Two simple possibilities: 10% / 15% = % - 10% = 5% Relative Risk (RR) Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)

Quantifying the Benefit Relative risk as a measure of effect size RR = 0.66 – is this big or small?

Quantifying the Benefit Relative risk as a measure of effect size RR = 0.66 – is this big or small? MI: 10% vs. 15% in 10 years Death: 50% vs. 75% in 3 years Basal Cell CA: 2% vs. 3% in lifetime

Quantifying the Benefit Relative risk as a measure of effect size RR = 0.66 – is this big or small? MI: 10% vs. 15% in 10 years Death: 50% vs. 75% in 3 years Basal Cell CA: 2% vs. 3% in lifetime Medium Big Small

Quantifying the Benefit Relative risk as a measure of effect size RR = 0.66 – is this big or small? MI: 10% vs. 15% in 10 years Death: 50% vs. 75% in 3 years Basal Cell CA: 2% vs. 3% in lifetime RR is NOT the best measure of effect size

Quantifying the Benefit Absolute risk reduction (ARR) is better ARR = Risk difference = Risk2 – Risk1

Quantifying the Benefit Absolute risk reduction (ARR) is better RRARR MI: 10% vs. 15% in 10 years.665% Death: 50% vs. 75% in 3 years.6625% Basal Cell CA: 2% vs. 3% in lifetime.661%

Q: What does the 34% reduction mean?

Nimotop® Ad Graph 22% 33% Risk1 = 61/278 = 21.8% Risk2 = 92/276 = 33% RR = 22%/33% =.66 ARR = 33% - 22% = 11%

Nimotop® Ad Graph 22% 33% Risk1 = 61/278 = 21.8% Risk2 = 92/276 = 33% RR = 22%/33% =.66 ARR = 33% - 22% = 11% What is 34%?

Nimotop® Ad Graph 22% 33% Risk1 = 61/278 = 21.8% Risk2 = 92/276 = 33% RR = 22%/33% =.66 ARR = 33% - 22% = 11% Relative risk reduction (RRR) = 1 – RR = =.34 or 34%

Quantifying the Benefit RRR is no better than RR RRRRR MI: 10% vs. 15% in 10 years.6634% Death: 50% vs. 75% in 3 years.6634% Basal Cell CA: 2% vs. 3% in lifetime.6634%

Quantifying the Benefit RRR is ALWAYS bigger than ARR (unless untreated risk is 100%)

Quantifying the Benefit BEWARE of risk reduction language!! ARR or RRR? We reduced risk by 34% Risk was 34% lower

Quantifying the Benefit BEWARE of risk reduction language!! ARR or RRR? We reduced risk by 34% cant tell Risk was 34% lowercant tell Very hard to be unambiguous!

Quantifying the Benefit Another reason that ARR is better: Translate it into Number Needed to Treat NNT = 1/ARR

Why is NNT = 1/ARR? 67 no stroke anyway 22 strokes with Nimotop® 11 strokes prevented 22 strokes with with treatment 33 strokes with no treatment 100 SAH patients treated R2 R1

Why is NNT 1/ARR? Treat 100 SAH patients prevent 11 strokes Ratio manipulation: 100 treated1 treated9.1 treated 11 prevented.11 prevented1 prevented ==

Why is NNT 1/ARR? Treat 100 SAH patients prevent 11 strokes Ratio manipulation: 100 treated1 treated9.1 treated 11 prevented.11 prevented1 prevented == 1/ARR= NNT

Why is NNT 1/ARR? NNT best expressed in a sentence: Need to treat 9.1 persons with SAH using nimodipine to prevent 1 cerebral infarction

Quantifying the Benefit NNT calculation practice RRARR NNT? MI: 10% vs. 15% in 10 years.665% Death: 50% vs. 75% in 3 years.6625% Basal Cell CA: 2% vs. 3% in lifetime.661%

Quantifying the Benefit NNT calculation practice RRARR NNT? MI: 10% vs. 15% in 10 years.665% 20 Death: 50% vs. 75% in 3 years.6625% Basal Cell CA: 2% vs. 3% in lifetime.661%

Quantifying the Benefit NNT calculation practice RRARR NNT? MI: 10% vs. 15% in 10 years.665% 20 Death: 50% vs. 75% in 3 years.6625% 4 Basal Cell CA: 2% vs. 3% in lifetime.661%

Quantifying the Benefit NNT calculation practice RRARR NNT? MI: 10% vs. 15% in 10 years.665% 20 Death: 50% vs. 75% in 3 years.6625% 4 Basal Cell CA: 2% vs. 3% in lifetime.661% 100

Quantifying the Benefit NNT expression practice RRARR NNT? MI: 10% vs. 15% in 10 years.665% 20 Death: 50% vs. 75% in 3 years.6625% 4 Basal Cell CA: 2% vs. 3% in lifetime.661% 100 Statins Chemo Sunscreen every day

Quantifying the Benefit NNT expression practice Need to treat 20 patients with statins for 10 years to prevent 1 MI Need to treat 4 patients with chemo for 3 years to prevent 1 death Need to treat 100 patients with sunscreen every day for their whole life to prevent 1 basal cell

Example 1 Randomized controlled trial of the effects of hip replacement vs. screws on re-operation in elderly patients with displaced hip fractures. Parker MH et al. Bone Joint Surg Br. 84(8):

Example 1 Re-operationNo Re-operation Hip Replacement Internal Fixation with Screws Parker MH et al. Bone Joint Surg Br. 84(8):

Example 1 Re-operationNo Re-operationRisk Hip Replacement /229 =5.2% Internal Fixation with Screws /226 =39.8%

Example 1 Re-operationNo Re-operationRisk Hip Replacement /229 =5.2% Internal Fixation with Screws /226 =39.8% RR= R1/R2= 5.2% / 39.8%=.13 RRR= 1-RR= 1-.13= 87% ARR= R2 – R1= 39.8% - 5.2%= 34.6% NNT= 1/ARR= 1/.346= 3 Need to treat 3 patients with hip replacement instead of screws to prevent 1 from needing a re-do operation

Example 2 JUPITER: Randomized controlled trial of high dose rosuvastatin in patients with LDL 2.0 Ridker et al. NEJM 2008; 359:

Example 2 Ridker et al. NEJM 2008; 359:

Example 2 Ridker et al. NEJM 2008; 359:

Example 2 HR= (R1/R2)(from regression)=.56 RRR= 1-HR= 1-.56= 44% ARR= R2 – R1= =.59 / 100py* =.0059 / py NNT= 1/ARR= 1/.0059 = 100/.59= 169 pys Need to treat 169 patients for a year to prevent 1 CVD event Or better: Need to treat 85 patients for 2 years to prevent 1 CVD event (average treatment duration in trial was 1.9 years) * py = person-years

Example 4 Warfarin vs. placebo for atrial fibrillation WarfarinPlacebo Risk of major bleed (/yr)1.2%0.7% Ann Intern Med 1999; 131:

Example 4 Warfarin vs. placebo for atrial fibrillation RR= R1/R2= 1.2% /.7%= 1.7 RR (flipped) = R2/R1=.7% / 1.2%=.59 RRR (flipped) = 1-RR= = 41% ARR= R2 – R1=.7% - 1.2%= -.5% ARI – Absolute risk increase = 0.5% NNT= 1/ARR= 1/-.5%= -200 NNH – Number needed to harm = -NNT = 1/ARI = 200 If you treat 200 Afib patients with warfarin, you will cause 1 major bleed

Circling back to test utility… Tests help determine: If the RR applies Treatment for a disease doesnt help if you dont have the disease! Interactions (RR is higher or lower than average) Statins more effective if CRP is high? Patients with gene XYZ more likely to have a side effect Baseline risk The higher the risk, the larger the ARR, the smaller the NNT

Key Concepts Test utility depends on how good the treatment is RR and p-values good for hypothesis testing/statistics ARR and NNT (and NNH) better for interpreting clinical importance ARR = risk difference NNT = 1/NNT Beware RRR and ambiguous language