Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis,...
-
Upload
osborne-glenn -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis,...
![Page 1: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment
Thresholds Revisited
6 November 2008
Michael A. Kohn, MD, MPP
Using Randomized Trials to Quantify Treatment Effects
![Page 2: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
EBM is about using research studies to help in two related areas:
Diagnosis: Evaluate a test and then use it to determine whether a patient has a given disease. (Chs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8)
Treatment: Determine if a treatment is beneficial in patients with a given disease, and if so, whether the benefits outweigh the costs and risks. (Chs. 9, 10)
In screening programs (Ch. 6), diagnosis and treatment are the most closely intertwined. Prognostic testing (Ch. 7) requires longitudinal studies and evaluation of calibration as well as discrimination.
![Page 3: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
EBM is about using research studies to help in two related areas:
Diagnosis: Evaluate a test and then use it to determine whether a patient has a given disease. (Chs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8)
Treatment: Determine if a treatment is beneficial in patients with a given disease, and if so, whether the benefits outweigh the costs and risks. (Chs. 9, 10)
In screening programs (Ch. 6), diagnosis and treatment are the most closely intertwined. Prognostic testing (Ch. 7) requires longitudinal studies and evaluation of calibration as well as discrimination.
![Page 4: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Quantifying the Benefit of a Treatment: Take Home Points
• RCT Checklist
• Need baseline incidence of bad outcome*.
• Number Needed to Treat =NNT= 1/ARR
• Number Needed to (treat to) Harm = NNH = 1/ARI
• Back-of-the-envelope CEA: Treatment cost per bad outcome prevented = Treatment Cost x NNT
*Unless the RR is 1 and RRR is 0.
![Page 5: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
RCT Checklist
![Page 6: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Design and conduct• Randomization to address issues of confounding • Blinding of patients and clinicians to prevent differential
co-interventions• Blinding of outcome assessors to prevent bias• Patient-Oriented Effect Measures (POEMs) vs. surrogate
outcomes• Decompose composite outcomes• Good follow-up to eliminate differential losses to follow-
up
*For checklist on study validity, see Chapter 1B1 “Therapy”, in Guyatt and Rennie (eds.), Users Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice; AMA Press; 2002. (Or try http://www.cche.net/usersguides/therapy.asp#Valid )
RCT Checklist for Study Validity*
![Page 7: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Analysis
• Intention-to-treat analysis (once randomized always analyzed)
• Compare entire randomization groups, not subgroups
• Between groups rather than within groups comparison
*For checklist on study validity, see Chapter 1B1 “Therapy”, in Guyatt and Rennie (eds.), Users Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice; AMA Press; 2002. (Or try http://www.cche.net/usersguides/therapy.asp#Valid )
RCT Checklist for Study Validity*
![Page 8: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Randomization, Intention-to-Treat Analysis, and Follow-up: Hip Replacement vs. Screws
• Pt is a 81-year-old woman with a hip fracture• Pt’s son is a physician. He asks about hip
replacement vs. screws.
Pubmed search Parker MJ, Khan RJ, Crawford J, Pryor GA. Hemiarthroplasty versus internal fixation for displaced intracapsular hip fractures in the elderly. A randomised trial of 455 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. Nov 2002;84(8):1150-1155.
![Page 9: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Displaced Femoral Neck Fracture = Hip Fracture
![Page 10: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Internal Fixation = Screws
![Page 11: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Hemiarthroplasty = Hip Replacement
![Page 12: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Randomization, Intention-to-Treat Analysis, and Follow-up: Parker MH et al. Bone Joint
Surg Br. 84(8):1150-1155.
Randomized controlled trial of the effects of hip replacement vs. screws on re-operation and other outcomes in > 70-year-old patients with displaced, hip fractures.
![Page 13: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Randomization: Parker MH et al. Bone Joint Surg Br. 84(8):1150-1155.
Why do a randomized experiment?
Why not do an observational study comparing mortality, re-operation rates, etc. between patients who had hip replacements and patients who had screws?
![Page 14: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Intention-to-Treat: Parker MH et al. Bone Joint Surg Br. 84(8):1150-1155.
Some patients randomized to the hip replacement group ended up getting screws.
Why not include these patients’ outcomes in the screws group or at least exclude them from the hip replacement group?
![Page 15: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Losses to Follow-Up: Parker MH et al. Bone Joint Surg Br. 84(8):1150-1155.*
If each treatment group had 20% loss to follow-up, there could still be bias.
What if those in the screws group were lost to follow-up because they got better and those in the hip replacement group were lost because they died?
*In fact, there were no losses to follow-up in this study.
![Page 16: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Patient Oriented Endpoints, Blinding
• Pt is a 34-year-old man who dislocated his shoulder while surfing at Ocean Beach.
• He asks about early arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization and PT.
Pubmed search Kirkley A, Griffin S, Richards C, Miniaci A, Mohtadi N. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of immediate arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization and rehabilitation in first traumatic anterior dislocations of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. Jul-Aug 1999;15(5):507-514
![Page 17: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Endpoints, Blinding: Arthroscopy vs. immobilization for 1st shoulder
dislocation
Kirkley A, Griffin S, Richards C, Miniaci A, Mohtadi N. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of immediate arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization and rehabilitation in first traumatic anterior dislocations of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. Jul-Aug 1999;15(5):507-514.
![Page 18: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
![Page 19: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Outcomes Affected by Treatments*
• Dichotomous (e.g. recurrent dislocation)
• Continuous (e.g. WOSI**)
Endpoints
• Patient relevant (e.g., ability to return to sports)
• Surrogate (e.g., MRI findings)
* Example: Arthroscopy vs. conservative tx for 1st Anterior Shoulder Dislocation (Arthroscopy. 1999 Jul-Aug;15(5):507-14. )**Western Ontario Shoulder Disability Index
![Page 20: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Outcomes Affected by Treatments
• Dichotomous (e.g. recurrent dislocation)
• Continuous (e.g. WOSI)
Endpoints
• Patient relevant (e.g., ability to return to sports)
• Surrogate (e.g., MRI findings)
![Page 21: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Blinding
• Blinding of Patients and Clinicians– Eliminates differential co-interventions
• Blinding of Outcome Assessment– Eliminates biased outcome assessment
![Page 22: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Blinding
Blinding less important when opportunity for cointerventions that affect outcomes is minimal, and outcome is not subjective.
• Hip Replacement vs Screws for hip fracture, with endpoints of mortality and re-operation: patients, clinicians, and outcome assessors not blinded.
• Arthroscopy vs. non-operative management of shoulder dislocation, with endpoints of re-dislocation, and WOSI*: patients not blinded, but clinicians and outcome assessors (therapists) were blinded.
*Western Ontario Shoulder Disability Index**Moseley JB, et al. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 2002;347(2):81-88.
![Page 23: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Between-groups Comparison
Nissen SE, Tsunoda T, Tuzcu EM, Schoenhagen P, Cooper CJ, Yasin M, et al. Effect of recombinant ApoA-I Milano on coronary atherosclerosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a randomized controlled trial. Jama 2003;290(17):2292-2300.
![Page 24: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Sub-group Analysis: ISIS II*
30-day mortality
*Lancet 1988;2(8607):349-360.
Overall Geminis and Libras
Other signs
Aspirin 9.4% 11.1% 9.0%
Placebo 11.8% 10.2% 12.1%
![Page 25: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Sub-group Analysis: ISIS II*
30-day mortality
*Lancet 1988;2(8607):349-360.
Aspirin Placebo
Died Total % Died Total %
Gemini/Libra 150 1359 11.0% 147 1442 10.2%
All other signs 654 7228 9.0% 868 7157 12.1%
![Page 26: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Composite Endpoints
Major Cardiac Event
Yes No
Bypass Graft
Irradiation 19 41 60 32%
Placebo 38 22 60 63%
Irradiation to prevent re-blockage after cleaning out a blocked coronary artery bypass graft.
“At 12 months, … the rate of major cardiac events was 49 percent lower (32 percent vs. 63 percent, P<0.001). “
Waksman, R., A. E. Ajani, et al. (2002). "Intravascular gamma radiation for in-stent restenosis in saphenous-vein bypass grafts." N Engl J Med 346(16): 1194-9.
![Page 27: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Composite Endpoints
“Major Cardiac Event” =
Death or MI or Revascularization Procedure
Irradiation Group: 19 “Events”
4 deaths, 1 MI, 17 Revasc Proc
Placebo Group: 38 “Events”
4 deaths, 2 MI, 37 Revasc Proc
![Page 28: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Composite Endpoints
Could have been:
Irradiation Group: 19 “Events”
4 deaths, 1 MI, 17 Revasc Proc
Placebo Group: 38 “Events”
0 deaths, 1 MI, 37 Revasc Proc
![Page 29: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
*For checklist on study validity, see Chapter 1B1 “Therapy”, in Guyatt and Rennie (eds.), Users Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice; AMA Press; 2002. (Or try http://www.cche.net/usersguides/therapy.asp#Valid )
DONE: RCT Checklist for Study Validity*• Randomization to address issues of confounding • Blinding of patients and clinicians to prevent differential
co-interventions• Blinding of outcome assessors to prevent bias• Patient-Oriented Effect Measures (POEMs) vs.
surrogate outcomes• Take care with composite outcomes• Good follow-up to eliminate differential losses to follow-
up• Intention-to-treat analysis (once randomized always
analyzed)• Between groups rather than within groups comparison• Compare entire randomization groups, not subgroups
![Page 30: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
RCTs1. Parker MJ, Khan RJ, Crawford J, Pryor GA. Hemiarthroplasty versus
internal fixation for displaced intracapsular hip fractures in the elderly. A randomised trial of 455 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. Nov 2002;84(8):1150-1155.
2. Kirkley A, Griffin S, Richards C, Miniaci A, Mohtadi N. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of immediate arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization and rehabilitation in first traumatic anterior dislocations of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. Jul-Aug 1999;15(5):507-514
3. ISIS-2 (1988). "Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group." Lancet 2(8607): 349-60.
4. Waksman, R., A. E. Ajani, et al. (2002). "Intravascular gamma radiation for in-stent restenosis in saphenous-vein bypass grafts." N Engl J Med 346(16): 1194-9.
![Page 31: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Effect Size(Dichotomous Outcomes*)
RR
RRR
ARR
NNT
ARI
NNH
* Not going to discuss continuous outcomes today
![Page 32: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
This study was properly randomized but not blinded, used an intention-to-treat analysis, and had NO losses to follow-up.
Results follow…
Parker MH et al. Bone Joint Surg Br. 84(8):1150-1155.
![Page 33: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Reduced Re-operation
Re-operation No Re-operation Risk
Hip Replacement 12 217 229 12/229 = 5.2%
Internal Fixation with Screws 90 136 226 90/226 = 39.8%
Risk Ratio (RR): 5.2%/39.8% = 0.13
Relative Risk Reduction (RRR): 1 - RR = 87%
Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR):39.8% - 5.2%
= 34.6%
Number Needed to Treat (NNT) 1/ARR = 3
(Need to treat 3 patients with hip replacement instead of screws to prevent one patient requiring re-operation.)
![Page 34: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Measures of Treatment Effect
RR= Risk Ratio =
RR < 1 means treatment is beneficial
RRR = Relative Risk Reduction = 1-RR
)/(
)/(
dcc
baa
Bad Outcome
No Bad Outcome
Totals
Treatment a b a + b
Control c d c + d
Totals a + c b + d N = a + b + c + d
![Page 35: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Beware of the Odds Ratio
RR = Risk Ratio =
(a/b) (a/c)
OR = Odds Ratio = ------- = -------- = ad/bc
(c/d) (b/d)
)/(
)/(
dcc
baa
Bad Outcome
No Bad Outcome
Totals
Treatment a b a + b
Control c d c + d
Totals a + c b + d N = a + b + c + d
In the hip replacement vs. screws example, the baseline risk of reoperation (with screws) is 40%,
so the baseline odds are 67%. The risk (or odds) with replacement is about 5% , so RR ≈ 5/40 ≈
1/8; but the OR ≈ 5/67 ≈ 1/13.
![Page 36: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Atraumatic vs. Standard Spinal Needle and Occurence of Headache
Needle HA No HA Risk Odds
Atraumatic 50 239 289 17% 0.21
Standard 92 206 298 31% 0.45
142 445 587
RR 0.56
Reported This
OR 0.47Straus, S. E., K. E. Thorpe, et al. (2006). JAMA 296(16): 2012-22.
![Page 37: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Measures of Treatment Effect
ARR = Absolute Risk Reduction = c/(c+d) - a/(a+b)
NNT = Number Needed to Treat (to prevent 1 bad outcome) = 1/ARR
Bad Outcome
No Bad Outcome
Totals
Treatment a b a + b
Control c d c + d
Totals a + c b + d N = a + b + c + d
![Page 38: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Q: What does the 34% reduction mean?
![Page 39: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Nimotop® Ad Graph
22% 33%
• RR = 21.8%/33% = .66• RRR = 1-0.66 = 34%• ARR = 33% - 21.8% = 11.2%
![Page 40: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Original figure
11%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
To scale
![Page 41: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
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
![Page 42: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Why is NNT 1/ARR?
Treat 100 SAH patients; prevent 11 strokes.
100/11 = 1/11% = 1/ARR = 9 patients treated per stroke prevented.
![Page 43: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
NNT Practice
In patients < 30 years old with first-time acute anterior shoulder dislocation, prompt arthroscopic surgery (vs. standard conservative therapy) reduces the 2-year re-dislocation rate by almost 33% in absolute terms (from about 50% to about 17%).*
How many first-time dislocation patients do we need to treat with arthroscopy to prevent one having re-dislocation at 2 years?
*Kirkley A, et al. Arthroscopy. Jul-Aug 1999;15(5):507-514. Numbers rounded for purposes of exposition.
![Page 44: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
NNT Practice
ISIS- 2*. Aspirin therapy (one month of 160 mg/day) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) reduced 30-day cardiovascular mortality from 11.8% in the placebo group to 9.3% in the aspirin group.
*Lancet 1988;2(8607):349-360.
![Page 45: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
NNT PracticeHow many AMI patients do we need to treat with
aspirin to prevent one CV death at 30 days?
Death at 30 Days
Died Lived
Aspirin 804 7783 8587 9.3%
Placebo 1016 7584 8600 11.8%
-2.5%
*Lancet 1988;2(8607):349-360.
![Page 46: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
NNT Practice
RCT of re-insertion of stylette to reduce post-LP headache.
Of 300 patients who had stylette re-inserted, only 15 (5%) got headaches.
Of 300 patients who did not have stylette re-inserted, 49 (16%) got headaches.
How many stylettes do you have to re-insert to prevent one post-LP headache?
J. Neurol. 1998 Sep;245(9):589-92
![Page 47: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
NNT Practice
Stylette Reinserted HA No HA Total Risk
Yes 15 285 300 0.05
No 49 251 300 0.16
ARR 0.11
NNT 9
![Page 48: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
The risk ratio (RR) or relative risk reduction (RRR = 1-RR) associated with a treatment is of minimal use without knowing the baseline level of risk*.
Problem with the Relative Risk Reduction
*The RR is not completely useless without the baseline risk. If RR=1, the tx is useless regardless of the baseline risk. If RR << 1, then the treatment is beneficial; if RR >> 1, the treatment is harmful. Also, if you already know the baseline risk in your own population, the RR may be all you need.
![Page 49: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Irradiation to prevent re-blockage after cleaning out a blocked coronary artery bypass graft.
“At 12 months, the rate of revascularization of the target lesion was 70 percent lower in the iridium-192 group than in the placebo group”
Waksman, R., A. E. Ajani, et al. (2002). "Intravascular gamma radiation for in-stent restenosis in saphenous-vein bypass grafts." N Engl J Med 346(16): 1194-9.
After cleaning out blocked bypass graft, how many do we have to treat with iridium to prevent one revascularization procedure (of the target lesion)?
Problem with the Relative Risk Reduction
![Page 50: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
“At 12 months, the rate of revascularization of the target lesion was 70 percent lower in the iridium-192 group than in the placebo group”
Waksman, R., A. E. Ajani, et al. (2002). "Intravascular gamma radiation for in-stent restenosis in saphenous-vein bypass grafts." N Engl J Med 346(16): 1194-9.
After cleaning out blocked bypass graft, how many do we have to treat with iridium to prevent 1 revascularization procedure in the next 12 months?
Problem with the Relative Risk Reduction
The baseline risk (i.e., risk in the placebo group) was 57%
![Page 51: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Baseline 12-month risk of revascularization = 57%RRR = 0.70
ARR = RRR × Riskcontrol
ARR = 0.70 × 0.57 = 0.40NNT = 1/0.40 = 2.5Need to treat 2.5 unclogged grafts with radiation to
prevent 1 from needing revascularization of the target lesion in the next 12 months.
Problem with the Relative Risk Reduction
Need Baseline Risk
![Page 52: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
ARR = RRR × Riskcontrol
![Page 53: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Analysis and Presentation of Results
• Relative risk most relevant for assessing causation
• Absolute risk reduction (ARR) most relevant for clinical decisions
• 1/(ARR) = Number Needed to Treat (NNT) per outcome prevented
![Page 54: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Effect of Flu Vaccination on All-Cause Mortality During the Flu Season
The study population included almost 300,000 subjects at least 65 years old, of whom about 58% were vaccinated. Among vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects, 1.2% and 2.0% respectively died during the flu season.
Nichol et al. N Engl J Med. Apr 3 2003;348(14):1322-1332. This was NOT an RCT, lots of confounding to address, but it’s related to the flu.
Pooled computerized data from 3 large managed care organizations.
![Page 55: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
No Flu Shot?
How about Tamiflu?
![Page 56: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Flu Prophylaxis?• Pt is a 14-year-old girl with fever, myalgias, cough and
sore throat X 1 day• Should you rx prophylactic Tamiflu® for the pt’s
grandmother (in her 70s) who lives in the same household and didn’t get the flu shot this year?
Pubmed search Welliver R et al. Effectiveness of Oseltamivir in Preventing Influenza in Household Contacts: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 2001; 285:748-754.
![Page 57: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Prophylactic Oseltamivir: Index Case Flu+*
Household Contacts
Flu No Flu Risk
Oseltamivir 3 206 209 3/209 = 1.4%
Placebo 26 180 206 26/206 = 12.6%
29 386 415
Risk Ratio (RR): 1.4%/12.6% = 0.11
Relative Risk Reduction (RRR): 1 - RR = 89%
Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR): 12.6% - 1.4% = 11.2%
Number Needed to Treat (NNT) ????
*Welliver R et al. Effectiveness of Oseltamivir in Preventing Influenza in Household Contacts: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 2001; 285:748-754.
![Page 58: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Prophylactic Oseltamivir: Index Case Flu+*
Household Contacts
Flu No Flu Risk
Oseltamivir 3 206 209 3/209 = 1.4%
Placebo 26 180 206 26/206 = 12.6%
29 386 415
Risk Ratio (RR): 1.4%/12.6% = 0.11
Relative Risk Reduction (RRR): 1 - RR = 0.89
Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR): 12.6% - 1.4% = 11.2%
Number Needed to Treat (NNT) 1/ARR = 9
*Welliver R et al. Effectiveness of Oseltamivir in Preventing Influenza in Household Contacts: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 2001; 285:748-754.
![Page 59: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Number Needed To HarmNausea No Nausea Risk
Oseltamivir 27 467 494 27/494 = 5.5%
Placebo 12 449 461 12/461 = 2.6%
Risk Ratio (RR): 5.5%/2.6% = 2.1
Absolute Risk Increase (ARI): 5.5% - 2.6% = 2.9%
Number Needed to Harm (NNH): 1/ARI = 35
NNH is really number needed to treat to cause one undesired effect.
![Page 60: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Number Needed to Harm
Not an apt term for number needed to treat to cause one bad outcome.
Would prefer NNTc (“Number Needed to Treat to cause”) vs. NNTp (“Number Needed to Treat to prevent”), but NNH is well established.
![Page 61: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Ratio of Undesired to Desired Effects
“Harms” / Bad Outcome Prevented =
ARI/ARR =
NNT/NNH
Or
Bad Outcomes Prevented / Harm Caused =
ARR/ARI =
NNH/NNT
![Page 62: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
Number Needed to HarmTransfusion No Transfusion
Hip Replacement 44 179 223 44/223 = 19.7%
Internal Fixation with Screws 4 219 223 4/223 = 1.8%
Risk Ratio (RR): 19.7%/1.8% = 11.00
Absolute Risk Increase (ARI): 19.7% - 1.8% = 17.9%
Number Needed to Harm (NNH) ????
![Page 63: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
Number Needed to HarmTransfusion No Transfusion
Hip Replacement 44 179 223 44/223 = 19.7%
Internal Fixation with Screws 4 219 223 4/223 = 1.8%
Risk Ratio (RR): 19.7%/1.8% = 11.00
Absolute Risk Increase (ARI): 19.7% - 1.8% = 17.9%
Number Needed to Harm (NNH) 1/ARI = 6
(Need to treat 6 patients with hip replacement instead of screws to cause one patient requiring transfusion.)
![Page 64: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
Ratio of Desired to Undesired Effects
Bad Outcomes Prevented / Harm Caused = ARR/ARI = NNH/NNT*Hip Replacement vs. Screws for Hip FxRisk Difference for re-operation:
∆ Risk Re-Op = 5.2% - 39.8% = -34.6%Risk Difference for transfusion:
∆ Risk Trx = 19.7% - 1.8% = +17.9% Re-operations prevented/Transfusion Caused: -
34.6/17.9 = -1.93 ≈ -2
*Easier here to divide ∆ re-operation by ∆ transfusion, rather than use NNH or NNT.
![Page 65: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
Ratio of Undesired to Desired Effects
Cases of Nausea / Flu Case Prevented =
2.9%/ 11% = 0.25
Or
Flu Cases Prevented / Nausea Caused =
11%/2.9% = 4
![Page 66: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
BOTE CEA
Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis
(In book, this is referred to a “treatment cost per bad outcome prevented.)
![Page 67: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis
How many patients do I need to treat (at the treatment cost) to prevent 1 bad outcome?
Number Needed to Treat (NNT) = 1/ARR
Cost of preventing one bad outcome =
NNT x Treatment Cost*
*This is just ∆$Cost /∆Risk .
![Page 68: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
BOTE CEA: Oseltamivir
Index Case Flu +• NNT = 9 (Treat 9 household contacts,
prevent 1 flu case)
• NNT x Treatment Cost* = 9 x $45 = $405/flu case prevented
•Cost of Tamiflu 75 mg #10 = $79.99 www.drugstore.com $79.99 1/7/08
![Page 69: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
BOTE CEA: Aspirin after MI
• NNT = 1/0.025 = 40 (Treat 40 MI patients to prevent 1 death at 30 days)
• At Rite Aid, a bottle (#120) of 81 mg aspirin tablets costs $5.00, but you only need 60.
• NNT x Treatment Cost* = 40 x $2.50 = $100/death prevented
Death at 30 Days
Died Lived
Aspirin 804 7783 8587 9.3%
Placebo 1016 7584 8600 11.8%
-2.5%
*Lancet 1988;2(8607):349-360.
![Page 70: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
BOTE CEA Example
Letrozole (Femara®) to prevent breast cancer recurrence after 5 years of tamoxifen therapy.
![Page 71: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Drug cuts risk of breast-cancer relapse
Findings so promising, study halted so scientists could release news
By Sabin RussellChronicle Medical Writer
Front Page, San Francisco Chronicle 10/10/03
RCT of Letrozole (Femara®), after tamoxifen, to prevent breast cancer recurrence
![Page 72: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
RRR or ARR?
“The trial was interrupted almost 2½ years after it began. Researchers had scheduled a midpoint peak at the data, and found letrozole was apparently working far better than expected. The women who took it had 43 percent fewer recurrences of their breast cancer compared to those assigned in the study to take a placebo, or dummy pill.”
![Page 73: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
Femara Trial Results
Recurrence No Recurrence
Letrozole 75 2500 2575
Placebo 132 2450 2582
Risk(Letrozole) = 75/2575 = 2.9%Risk(Placebo) = 132/2582 = 5.1%RR = 2.9/5.1 = 0.57RRR = 1- 0.57 = 43%
N Engl J Med. 2003 Nov 6;349(19):1793-802.
![Page 74: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
Femara Trial Results
ARR = 5.1% - 2.9% = 2.2%
NNT = 1/2.2% = 45
Treatment Cost = $266/month* x 12 months/year x 2.5 years = $7980
Femara Cost per Recurrence Prevented =
$7980 x 45 ≈ $360,000
*2.5mg tablets are available from www.drugstore.com $266/30 day supply (30 tablets) 1/7/2008.
![Page 75: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
Ondansetron for Oral Rehydration
VomitedDidn't
Vomit
Ondansetron 15 92 107 14%
Placebo 37 70 107 35%
RR 0.41
ARR 21%
NNT 5
Pill Cost $18
N Engl J Med. 2006 Apr 20;354(16):1698-705
![Page 76: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
BOTE CEA Examples
• Oseltamivir to prevent flu in household contacts of flu+ individuals:$405 per case of flu prevented
• Aspirin after acute MI: $100 per death prevented at 30 days
• Letrozole after tamoxifen to prevent recurrent breast cancer: $360,000 per recurrence prevented at 2.5 years
• Ondansetron to prevent vomiting during oral rehydration: $90 to prevent emesis during oral rehydration in one patient.
![Page 77: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
BOTE vs. “Real” CEA
Estimates treatment costs per bad outcome prevented – including the bad outcome’s costs
Treatment Costs---------------------------------------------------Bad Outcome + Bad Outcome’s Costs
“Real” Cost Effectiveness Analysis:
Treatment Costs – Bad Outcome’s Costs-------------------------------------------------------
Bad Outcome
![Page 78: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
BOTE vs. “Real” CEABack of the envelope:
Treatment Costs---------------------------------------------------Bad Outcome + Bad Outcome’s Costs
“Real”:
Treatment Costs – Bad Outcome’s Costs-------------------------------------------------------
Bad Outcome
Note that “real” analysis LOWERS the cost per bad outcome prevented and makes treatment look better.
![Page 79: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
Quantifying the Benefit* of a Treatment: Take Home Points
• The Risk Ratio or Relative Risk Reduction associated with an intervention is of minimal use without a baseline incidence of bad outcomes.
• You need to have an absolute risk reduction to calculate number needed to treat. (NNT = 1/ARR)
• For undesired effects of treatment, calculate the absolute risk increase (ARI), and the number needed to harm (NNH = 1/ARI)
• Back-of-the-envelope CEA: Treatment cost per bad outcome prevented = Treatment Cost x NNT
*With regard to dichotomous outcomes
![Page 80: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
Flu Prophylaxis?• Pt is a 14-year-old girl with fever, myalgias, cough and
sore throat X 1 day• Should you rx prophylactic Tamiflu® for the pt’s
grandmother (in her 70s) who lives in the same household and didn’t get the flu shot this year?
What if the 14-year-old doesn’t have the flu?
The relative risk reduction is the same (89%), but the baseline risk for the grandparents is so low that prophylactic oseltamivir doesn’t do much. (ARR is negligible, NNT is enormous.)
![Page 81: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
Prophylactic oseltamivir works if the index case has the flu, but you don’t know whether she does. You know that 45% of similar patients have laboratory proven influenza.
Probability of Flu + = 45%
![Page 82: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
NNT is calculated for patients with a particular condition “D”.
P = probability of that condition “D” in your patients
Your NNT* = NNT / P
Note that NNT* goes up as P = probability of condition “D” goes down.
Patient May Not Have The Condition That You’re Treating
*Assumes that treatment for patients without condition D has no value. (For D- patients, ARR = 0, NNT = ∞)
![Page 83: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
NNT if index case flu + = 9.
Probability of flu = 0.45
NNT* = 9 / 0.45 = 20
Probability of Flu + = 45%
*Assumes that treatment when index case is flu - has no value (ARR = 0, NNT = ∞)
![Page 84: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
No Adjustment of NNH for Disease Prevalence
Oseltamivir is no less likely to cause nausea in household contacts of Flu- patients than in those of Flu+ patients.
Prevalence of Flu+ = P = 45%ARI for nausea is still: 5.5% - 2.6% = 2.9%But, ARR is now:
0.45(12.6 %-1.4%) = 5%Cases Flu Prevented for each case of nausea
caused:5%/2.6% ≈ 2
![Page 85: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
No Adjustment of NNH for Disease Prevalence?
Long-term aspirin tx for primary prevention of MI
Assuming baseline risks are 1%/yr for MI, 0.03%/year for hemorrhagic CVAAnd RR’s are 0.76 for MI and 2.0 for hemorrhagic CVA
Risk of: Aspirin Placebo DifferenceNNT
MI 0.0076 0.01 -0.0024 417
Hemorrhagic CVA 0.0006 0.0003 0.0003 3333
Ratio of the rate differences = (0.0024/0.0003) = 3333/417 = 8
“For every 8 heart attacks prevented by aspirin, it causes 1 hemorrhagic stroke”
![Page 86: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
No Adjustment of NNH for Disease Prevalence?
Long-term aspirin for primary prevention of MI
Sensitivity to changes in the baseline risk of MI:
Baseline risk of MI:Ratio of MI prevented/CVA caused1%/year 82%/year 160.1%/year 0.8 (or, 1.25 strokes/MI)
But, this assumes that the risk of stroke is independent of the risk of MI. Aren’t both the result of vascular disease?
![Page 87: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
BOTE CEA: Oseltamivir
Index Case Flu +• NNT = 9 (Treat 9 household contacts, prevent 1
flu case)• NNT x Treatment Cost* = 9 x $35 = $315/flu
case prevented
45% Prob Flu+• NNT* = 9/0.45 = 20• NNT* x Treatment Cost = 20 x $35 = $700/flu
case prevented
* Cost of Tamiflu 75 mg #10 = $59.99 www.drugstore.com 3/4/2004
![Page 88: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
Treatment Threshold Probability from Cost-Effectiveness Threshold
IF you can specify the amount you are willing to spend on prophylactic oseltamivir to prevent one case of the flu, you can calculate the treatment threshold probability Ptt
![Page 89: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
Cost-Effectiveness Threshold Example
Willing to spend $800 on prophylactic oseltamivir per case prevented.
Ptt = $45/(11.2%×$800) = 0.50
Using the Chapter 3 notation:
C = $45
B = (11.2% × $800) - $45 = $45
C/(C+B) = 45/(45+45) = .50
![Page 90: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
Treatment Threshold Probability from Threshold Cost Effectiveness Ratio
Assume it is worth $800 in oseltamivir to prevent one case of the flu. We can calculate the treatment threshold probability PTT:
NNT* x $45 = $800
NNT/ PTT = $800/$45 ≈ 18
NNT/17.8 = PTT
9/18 = 0.5 = PTT
![Page 91: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
Estimating B (using only treatment costs)
V = Value of preventing ONE case (“worth $800 in oseltamivir to prevent one flu case”)
C = Cost of treating one D- individual unnecessarily (household contact of a Flu- individual) ($45)
B = Cost of failing to treat one D+ individual (household contact of a Flu+ individual)
B = ARR × V – C
![Page 92: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
V = $800 (worth $800 in oseltamivir to prevent one case of the flu)
C = $45 (cost of txing one pt with oseltamivir)
ARR = 11.2%
B = 11.2% x $800 - $45 = $45
Estimating B (using only treatment costs)
![Page 93: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
Treatment Threshold Probability
from B and C
C = $45
B = $45
B/C = 1:1 = Threshold Odds
B/(B+C) = 1/2 = Threshold Prob = PTT
![Page 94: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
Assumptions
• Only considers drug/treatment costs, not side effects of treatment
• Treatment does not reduce outcome risk among D- patients
• Can specify the amount willing to spend in treatment costs to prevent one outcome
![Page 95: Absolute Risk Reduction, Number Needed to Treat, Back-of-the-Envelope Cost Effectiveness Analysis, Treatment Thresholds Revisited 6 November 2008 Michael.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062717/56649e5d5503460f94b566cf/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
Review: Testing Thresholds (Chapter 3)
Probability of Disease
Treat none; no test
Treat based on test results
Treat all; no test
No Treat-Test Threshold
Test-Treat Threshold
Treatment Threshold