Eli O Meltzer1, Dana Wallace2, Mark Dykewicz3, Lucy Shneyer4. 1. Division of Immunology and Allergy, Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, Calif; Allergy and Asthma Medical Group and Research Center, San Diego, Calif. Electronic address: eliomeltzer@gmail.com. 2. Florida Center for Allergy and Asthma Control, Nova Southeastern University College of Health Professions, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 3. Section of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Mo. 4. Shneyer Statistics LLC, Denville, NJ.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2013, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recommended that allergic rhinitis (AR) studies calculate a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) based on an estimated threshold equal to 30% of the maximum total nasal symptom score. Applying this threshold, their data showed no differences between well-established treatments, and a subsequent analysis using prescribing information found no differences between active treatments and placebo controls. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to demonstrate the application of an evidence-based model to determine MCIDs for AR studies, with an absolute value for an anchor-based threshold and validated methods for calculating distribution-based thresholds. METHODS: Using the same studies as the AHRQ report, anchor- and distribution-based MCID thresholds were determined for 3 clinical comparisons identified by the AHRQ: (1) oral antihistamine+intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) versus INCS, (2) montelukast versus INCS, and (3) intranasal antihistamine+INCS in a single device versus the monotherapies. The outcomes were compared with those reported using the AHRQ threshold. RESULTS: No treatment comparison met the AHRQ-defined MCID threshold; all treatments were determined to be equivalent for all 3 queries. In contrast, the evidence-based model revealed some differences between treatments: INCS > montelukast; intranasal antihistamine+INCS > either monotherapy. No clinically relevant benefit was observed for adding an oral antihistamine to INCS, but some studies were not optimal choices for quantitative determination of MCIDs. Updating the literature search revealed no additional studies that met the AHRQ inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-based threshold for MCID determination for AR studies should supersede the threshold recommended in the AHRQ report.
BACKGROUND: In 2013, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recommended that allergic rhinitis (AR) studies calculate a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) based on an estimated threshold equal to 30% of the maximum total nasal symptom score. Applying this threshold, their data showed no differences between well-established treatments, and a subsequent analysis using prescribing information found no differences between active treatments and placebo controls. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to demonstrate the application of an evidence-based model to determine MCIDs for AR studies, with an absolute value for an anchor-based threshold and validated methods for calculating distribution-based thresholds. METHODS: Using the same studies as the AHRQ report, anchor- and distribution-based MCID thresholds were determined for 3 clinical comparisons identified by the AHRQ: (1) oral antihistamine+intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) versus INCS, (2) montelukast versus INCS, and (3) intranasal antihistamine+INCS in a single device versus the monotherapies. The outcomes were compared with those reported using the AHRQ threshold. RESULTS: No treatment comparison met the AHRQ-defined MCID threshold; all treatments were determined to be equivalent for all 3 queries. In contrast, the evidence-based model revealed some differences between treatments: INCS > montelukast; intranasal antihistamine+INCS > either monotherapy. No clinically relevant benefit was observed for adding an oral antihistamine to INCS, but some studies were not optimal choices for quantitative determination of MCIDs. Updating the literature search revealed no additional studies that met the AHRQ inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-based threshold for MCID determination for AR studies should supersede the threshold recommended in the AHRQ report.
Authors: Ayşe Arzu Yorgancıoğlu; Bilun Gemicioğlu; Cemal Cingi; Ömer Kalaycı; Ali Fuat Kalyoncu; Claus Bachert; Peter Hellings; Oliver Pfaar; Holger J Schünemann; Dana Wallace; Anna Bedbrook; Wienczyslawa Czarlewski; Jean Bousquet Journal: Turk Thorac J Date: 2020-03-01
Authors: A Simon Carney; David B Price; Pete K Smith; Richard Harvey; Vicky Kritikos; Sinthia Z Bosnic-Anticevich; Louise Christian; Derek A Skinner; Victoria Carter; Alice Ms Durieux Journal: Pragmat Obs Res Date: 2017-08-30
Authors: Zachary M Soler; Shaun A Nguyen; Craig Salvador; Thomas Lackland; Vincent M Desiato; Kristina Storck; Rodney J Schlosser Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: David B Price; Pete K Smith; Richard John Harvey; A Simon Carney; Vicky Kritikos; Sinthia Z Bosnic-Anticevich; Louise Christian; Derek Skinner; Victoria Carter; Alice Ms Durieux Journal: Pragmat Obs Res Date: 2018-08-15
Authors: Joaquim Mullol; Iñaki Izquierdo; Kimihiro Okubo; Giorgio Walter Canonica; Jean Bousquet; Antonio Valero Journal: Clin Transl Allergy Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 5.871
Authors: Dale Ehmer; Chad M McDuffie; W Cooper Scurry; J Bradley McIntyre; Neelesh H Mehendale; John H Willis; Ronald B Shealy; Jeremy P Watkins; V Vasu Kakarlapudi Journal: Am J Rhinol Allergy Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 2.467