Samy Suissa1. 1. Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute-Jewish General Hospital, Montreal,Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several recent trials in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have assessed the effectiveness of the fluticasone-salmeterol combination inhaler in preventing COPD exacerbations, while finding an increased risk of pneumonia. The number needed to treat (NNT) is a simple measure to perform the comparative benefit-risk impact, but its calculation involving repeated outcome events such as COPD exacerbations has been incorrect. We describe the proper methods to calculate the NNT and, using data from published trials, apply them to evaluate the relative impact of fluticasone-salmeterol treatment on exacerbations and pneumonias in patients with COPD. METHODS: We review the fundamental definition of NNT and quantify it for situations with varying follow-up times. We review the 'event-based' NNT, proposed and used for repeated event outcomes, show its inaccuracy, describe its proper use and provide an approximate formula for its application. RESULTS: We show that a 1-year trial of the fluticasone-salmeterol combination versus salmeterol used the incorrect event-based approach to calculate the NNT as two patients that need to be treated for 1 year to prevent one COPD exacerbation, when the proper calculation results in a NNT of 14. In contrast, 20 patients need to be treated to induce one pneumonia case. For the TORCH trial, the NNT is 44 patients treated for 3 years with fluticasone-salmeterol versus salmeterol to prevent one exacerbation compared with 16 patients to induce one pneumonia case. CONCLUSIONS: The NNT is a useful measure of the effect of drugs, but its proper calculation is essential to prevent misleading clinical practice guidelines.
BACKGROUND: Several recent trials in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have assessed the effectiveness of the fluticasone-salmeterol combination inhaler in preventing COPD exacerbations, while finding an increased risk of pneumonia. The number needed to treat (NNT) is a simple measure to perform the comparative benefit-risk impact, but its calculation involving repeated outcome events such as COPD exacerbations has been incorrect. We describe the proper methods to calculate the NNT and, using data from published trials, apply them to evaluate the relative impact of fluticasone-salmeterol treatment on exacerbations and pneumonias in patients with COPD. METHODS: We review the fundamental definition of NNT and quantify it for situations with varying follow-up times. We review the 'event-based' NNT, proposed and used for repeated event outcomes, show its inaccuracy, describe its proper use and provide an approximate formula for its application. RESULTS: We show that a 1-year trial of the fluticasone-salmeterol combination versus salmeterol used the incorrect event-based approach to calculate the NNT as two patients that need to be treated for 1 year to prevent one COPD exacerbation, when the proper calculation results in a NNT of 14. In contrast, 20 patients need to be treated to induce one pneumonia case. For the TORCH trial, the NNT is 44 patients treated for 3 years with fluticasone-salmeterol versus salmeterol to prevent one exacerbation compared with 16 patients to induce one pneumonia case. CONCLUSIONS: The NNT is a useful measure of the effect of drugs, but its proper calculation is essential to prevent misleading clinical practice guidelines.
Authors: Ann Chen Wu; James P Kiley; Patricia J Noel; Shashi Amur; Esteban G Burchard; John P Clancy; Joshua Galanter; Maki Inada; Tiffanie K Jones; Jonathan A Kropski; James E Loyd; Lawrence M Nogee; Benjamin A Raby; Angela J Rogers; David A Schwartz; Don D Sin; Avrum Spira; Scott T Weiss; Lisa R Young; Blanca E Himes Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-12-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Roberto Benzo; Kristin Vickers; Paul J Novotny; Sharon Tucker; Johanna Hoult; Pamela Neuenfeldt; John Connett; Kate Lorig; Charlene McEvoy Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Adrian Gillissen; Peter Haidl; Martin Khlhäufl; Klaus Kroegel; Thomas Voshaar; Christian Gessner Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Christer Janson; Kjell Larsson; Karin H Lisspers; Björn Ställberg; Georgios Stratelis; Helena Goike; Leif Jörgensen; Gunnar Johansson Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-05-29