The Application of Number Needed to Treat (NNT) to Clinical Problems in Radiotherapy

The goals of this report are: 1) to review the number needed to treat (NNT) concept, which, although well established in many sectors of medicine, is still relatively new to the radiotherapy community; 2) to discuss several clinical radiotherapy examples illustrating the inherent advantages of the NNT approach; and 3) to discuss potential future roles of the NNT concept within radiotherapy.     

Management Options for Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is associated with diverse pathophysiologic mechanisms. These mechanisms include increased abnormal colonic motility or transit, intestinal or colorectal sensation, increased colonic bile acid concentration, and superficial colonic mucosal inflammation, as well as epithelial barrier dysfunction, neurohormonal up-regulation, and activation of secretory processes in the epithelial layer. Novel approaches to treatment include lifestyle modification, changes in diet, probiotics, and pharmacotherapy directed to the motility, sensation, and intraluminal milieu of patients with IBS. Despite recent advances, there is a need for development of new treatments to relieve pain in IBS without deleterious central or other adverse effects.     

Combining ibuprofen and acetaminophen for acute pain management after third-molar extractions: Translating clinical research to dental practice

BackgroundEffective and safe drug therapy for the management of acute postoperative pain has relied on orally administered analgesics such as ibuprofen, naproxen and acetaminophen, or N-acetyl-p-aminophenol (APAP), as well as combination formulations containing opioids such as hydrocodone with APAP. The combination of ibuprofen and APAP has been advocated in the last few years as an alternative therapy for postoperative pain management. The authors conducted a critical analysis to evaluate the scientific evidence for using the ibuprofen-APAP combination and propose clinical treatment recommendations for its use in managing acute postoperative pain in dentistry.Types of Studies ReviewedThe authors used quantitative evidence-based reviews published by the Cochrane Collaboration to determine the relative analgesic efficacy and safety of combining ibuprofen and APAP. They found additional articles by searching the Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed and http://ClinicalTrials.gov databases.ConclusionsThe results of the quantitative systematic reviews indicated that the ibuprofen-APAP combination may be a more effective analgesic, with fewer untoward effects, than are many of the currently available opioid-containing formulations. In addition, the authors found several randomized controlled trials that also indicated that the ibuprofen-APAP combination provided greater pain relief than did ibuprofen or APAP alone after third-molar extractions. The adverse effects associated with the combination were similar to those of the individual component drugs.Practical ImplicationsCombining ibuprofen with APAP provides dentists with an additional therapeutic strategy for managing acute postoperative dental pain. This combination has been reported to provide greater analgesia without significantly increasing the adverse effects that often are associated with opioid-containing analgesic combinations. When making stepwise recommendations for the management of acute postoperative dental pain, dentists should consider including ibuprofen-APAP combination therapy.     

Meta-analysis of azelastine nasal spray for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the efficacy of azelastine nasal spray for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials reported in English. DATA SOURCE: Published literature from the PubMed-MEDLINE database. PATIENTS: Patients aged at least 12 (United States) or 16 years (Europe) with allergic rhinitis or nonallergic vasomotor rhinitis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A global assessment of efficacy was used to estimate the number needed to treat for azelastine nasal spray compared with placebo or active comparators. The total symptom score was used to compare the effect size between azelastine and placebo. In five comparisons of azelastine and placebo, azelastine was most efficacious, with a summary number needed to treat of 5.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.3-10.0). In reviewing 11 studies of azelastine versus active comparators, we found no significant difference between azelastine and active comparators (number needed to treat 66.7, 95% CI 14.3 to infinity to 25). Azelastine was more efficacious than placebo in terms of total symptom score (effect size of 0.36, 95% CI 0.26-0.46). CONCLUSION: Azelastine nasal spray was more efficacious than placebo in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. No significant differences were observed between azelastine and active comparators for the treatment of allergic rhinitis; however, when azelastine was compared with oral antihistamines as monotherapy, the trend favored azelastine. Because azelastine appears to be as efficacious as oral antihistamines, the choice of treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis should depend on the patient's preference regarding the route of administration, adverse effects, and the cost of the drug.     

Efficacy of vasopressin during cardio-pulmonary resuscitation in adult patients: A meta-analysis

Background

Experimental and animal studies suggested that vasopressin may have a favorable survival profile during CPR. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of vasopressin in adult cardiac patients.

Methodology

Meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of vasopressin containing regimen during CPR in adult cardiac arrest population with an epinephrine only regimen.

Results

A total of 6120 patients from 10 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. Vasopressin use during CPR has no beneficial impact in an unselected population in ROSC [OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.93, 1.52], survival to hospital discharge [OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.89, 1.43], survival to hospital admission [OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.99, 1.27] and favorable neurological outcome [OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75, 1.38]. ROSC in “in-hospital” cardiac arrest setting [OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.08, 4.47] is higher patients receiving vasopressin. Subgroup analyses revealed equal or higher chance of ROSC [OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.00, 4.61], higher possibility of survival to hospital discharge [OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.34, 4.27] and favorable neurological outcome [OR 2.58, 95% CI 1.39, 4.79] when vasopressin was used as repeated boluses of 4–5 times titrating desired effects during CPR.

Conclusion

ROSC in “in-hospital” cardiac arrest patients is significantly better when vasopressin was used. A subgroup analysis of this meta-analysis found that ROSC, survival to hospital admission and discharge and favorable neurological outcome may be better when vasopressin was used as repeated boluses of 4–5 times titrated to desired effects; however, overall no beneficial effect was noted in unselected cardiac arrest population.     

Endoscopic therapy versus medical therapy for bleeding peptic ulcer with adherent clot: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The optimal management of bleeding peptic ulcer with adherent clot is controversial and may include endoscopic therapy or medical therapy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, BIOSIS, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify all randomized controlled trials comparing the 2 interventions. Outcomes evaluated in the meta-analysis were recurrent bleeding, need for surgical intervention, length of hospitalization, transfusion requirement, and mortality. RESULTS: Six studies were identified that included 240 patients from the United States, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Spain. Patients in the endoscopic therapy group underwent endoscopic clot removal and treatment of the underlying lesion with thermal energy, electrocoagulation, and/or injection of sclerosants. Rebleeding occurred in 5 of 61 (8.2%) patients in the endoscopic therapy group, compared with 21 of 85 (24.7%) in the medical therapy group (P = .01), for a pooled relative risk of 0.35 (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.83; number needed to treat, 6.3). There was no difference between endoscopic therapy and medical therapy in length of hospital stay (mean, 6.8 vs 5.6 days; P = .27), transfusion requirement (mean, 3.0 vs 2.8 units of packed red blood cells; P = .75), or mortality (9.8% vs 7%; P = .54). Patients in the endoscopic therapy group were less likely to undergo surgery (pooled relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.98; number needed to treat, 13.3); however, this outcome became nonsignificant when only peer-reviewed studies were considered. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic therapy is superior to medical therapy for preventing recurrent hemorrhage in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers and adherent clots. The interventions are comparable with respect to the need for surgical intervention, length of hospital stay, transfusion requirement, and mortality.     

Impact of comprehensive and intensive treatment of risk factors concerning cardiovascular mortality in secondary prevention: MIRVAS Study

Introduction and objectives

The aim was to determine whether secondary prevention involving the comprehensive and intensive treatment of cardiovascular risk factors reduces cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality at 3-year follow up.

Methods

The study design comprised a randomized, controlled, open trial in a routine clinical practice setting. In total, 247 patients who presented with acute coronary syndrome or stroke were selected. They were randomized to comprehensive and intensive treatment of cardiovascular risk factors (n=121) or to follow-up based on usual care (n=126). The main study outcomes were the number of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality at 3-year follow-up. The percentage of patients in whom each risk factor was successfully controlled was a secondary outcome.

Results

Overall, 88.8% of patients assigned to the intensive treatment group had a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level <100 mg/dl compared with 56.4% of the usual-care group (relative risk [RR]=1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-1.93), and 75.7% of diabetics had a hemoglobin A_1c <7% compared with 28.6% of the usual-care group (RR=2.65; 95% CI, 1.13-6.19). There were four deaths due to cardiovascular causes and 26 nonfatal events in the intensive treatment group versus 17 deaths and 54 nonfatal events in the usual-care group. The cumulative survival rate at 3 years was 97.4% in the intervention group and 85.5% in the control group (p=.003).

Conclusions

Secondary prevention involving comprehensive and intensive treatment of cardiovascular risk factors reduced both morbidity and mortality at 3-year follow up.Full English text available from: www.revespcardiol.org