Number Needed To Treat Research Articles

Cost per Number Needed to Treat (NNT) for upadacitinib in the treatment of bio-exposed patients with moderately-severely active ulcerative rectocolitis

Background: Only limited information is available on cost efficacy of the advanced therapies for the treatment of ulcerative rectocolitis. We evaluated the efficacy and the treatment costs of these advanced therapies in the treatment of bio-exposed (primary failure to a biological agent) patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative rectocolitis. Methods: Data from a previous network meta-analysis (NMA) in the treatment of bio-exposed patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative rectocolitis was used. The analysis involved three therapies approved in Italy for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative rectocolitis: upadacitinib (UPA), ustekinumab (UST) and vedolizumab (VDZ). According to the NMA results, the analysis was conducted considering two different timepoints: induction and maintenance. The pharmacoeconomic comparison between advanced therapies was carried out to estimate the respective cost for the NNT (Number Needed to Treat) compared to placebo using the clinical response (CRes) for the induction and clinical remission (CRem) and endoscopic improvement (EI) for the maintenance. Only the ex-factory price of each advanced therapy was considered. The cost per NNT was adopted as a cost-effectiveness indicator. Results: Independently of the timepoint considered (induction or maintenance) and the clinical (CRem and CRes) or endoscopic endpoint (EI) evaluated, UPA had always the lower cost per NNT than UST and VDZ. For example, considering the induction and the CRes, the cost per NNT for upadacitinib (45 mg) was € 7,862.07 compared to € 30,459.38 for ustekinumab (6 mg/kg) and to € 67,868.00 for vedolizumab. Conclusion: Upadacitinib is a cost-effective therapeutic option compared to ustekinumab and vedolizumab in the treatment of bio-exposed patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative rectocolitis.

The Efficacy of Paraprobiotic, Probiotic, and Mineral Supplementation on the Eradication Rate of Helicobacter pylori in Patients with Dyspepsia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication regimens have been a concern, all along. Our study is aimed at assessing the effect of para- and probiotics plus minerals (Pyloshot) on H. pylori eradication rate. Methods. In this open-label randomized trial, 69 eligible adult patients with naïve H. pylori infection-related dyspepsia were randomly assigned into the group A, who received esomeprazole 40 mg BID, amoxicillin 1000 mg BID, and clarithromycin 500 mg BID, and group B with the same regimen plus one Pyloshot capsule BID for 10 days. Demographics and dyspepsia symptom severity scores (SSS), number needed to treat (NNT), dyspepsia SSS, and drug adverse effects were recorded at baseline and the end of treatment. H. pylori eradication was confirmed via 14C UBT eight weeks later. Results. Sixty-six patients completed the study. The intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) eradication rates were slightly better in group B (85.2% vs. 80%, p=0.562, and 87.8% vs. 84.8%, p=0.720, respectively). Adverse effects were significantly lower in group B (20.6% vs. 54.3%; p=0.004). No significant differences in dyspepsia symptom improvement rates (p=0.255) and mean difference of SSS (p=0.231) were found between treatment groups. NNT for overall dyspepsia and epigastric pain syndrome (EPS) was 11 and 5 at the end of treatment, respectively. Conclusion. Adding Pyloshot to the H. pylori regimen could slightly improve the eradication rate and SSS of dyspepsia. NNT was considerably better among EPS patients. Adverse effects were significantly decreased by this regimen. Further trials with larger sample sizes should be thought out. This trial is registered with IRCT20141201020178N10.

Optimizing adjuvant treatment options for patients with glioblastoma.

This study focused on minimizing the costs and toxic effects associated with unnecessary chemotherapy. We sought to optimize the adjuvant therapy strategy, choosing between radiotherapy (RT) and chemoradiotherapy (CRT), for patients based on their specific characteristics. This selection process utilized an innovative deep learning method. We trained six machine learning (ML) models to advise on the most suitable treatment for glioblastoma (GBM) patients. To assess the protective efficacy of these ML models, we employed various metrics: hazards ratio (HR), inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW)-adjusted HR (HRa), the difference in restricted mean survival time (dRMST), and the number needed to treat (NNT). The Balanced Individual Treatment Effect for Survival data (BITES) model emerged as the most effective, demonstrating significant protective benefits (HR: 0.53, 95% CI, 0.48-0.60; IPTW-adjusted HR: 0.65, 95% CI, 0.55-0.78; dRMST: 7.92, 95% CI, 7.81-8.15; NNT: 1.67, 95% CI, 1.24-2.41). Patients whose treatment aligned with BITES recommendations exhibited notably better survival rates compared to those who received different treatments, both before and after IPTW adjustment. In the CRT-recommended group, a significant survival advantage was observed when choosing CRT over RT (p < 0.001). However, this was not the case in the RT-recommended group (p = 0.06). Males, older patients, and those whose tumor invasion is confined to the ventricular system were more frequently advised to undergo RT. Our study suggests that BITES can effectively identify GBM patients likely to benefit from CRT. These ML models show promise in transforming the complex heterogeneity of real-world clinical practice into precise, personalized treatment recommendations.

Serum Biomarkers after Adenotonsillectomy for Pediatric OSA: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

To assess whether adenotonsillectomy improves levels of inflammatory and cardiometabolic markers in children with polysomnographically diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Two authors independently searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to August 16, 2022, for studies relating to pre- and post-operative levels of serum markers in pediatric patients undergoing adenotonsillectomy. Data were extracted from included articles into a structured proforma. Meta-analyses of the standardized mean difference (SMD) were conducted in random-effects models. We calculated the probability of benefit (POB) and number needed to treat (NNT) for outcomes that demonstrated a statistically significant effect after adenotonsillectomy. The primary outcomes were changes in serum markers including C-reactive protein (CRP), high-sensitivity CRP (hs-CRP), Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), interleukin-10 (IL-10), interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), insulin, glucose, total cholesterol, triglyceride, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL). We screened 1616 studies and included 26 studies with 1331 participants. Meta-analysis was performed on 20 of the included studies. Adenotonsillectomy was associated with a significant decrease in insulin levels (SMD = -0.322, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = -0.583 to -0.061), CRP (SMD = -0.946, 95% CI = -1.578 to -0.314), and BNP (SMD = -1.416, 95% CI = -2.355 to -0.477) and significant increase in levels of IGF-1 (SMD = 0.691, 95% CI = 0.207 to 1.176). There were no significant changes in levels of triglyceride, total cholesterol, TNF-α, LDL, HDL, glucose, IL-10, and IL-6. In children with polysomnographically diagnosed OSA, adenotonsillectomy was associated with improvements in serum biomarkers, comprising lower CRP, insulin, and BNP, and higher IGF-1. Laryngoscope, 134:3030-3037, 2024.

Cost per NNT for upadacitinib in the treatment of patients with moderate-severe atopic dermatitis in Italy

Background: Targeted systemic therapies, including abrocitinib, baricitinib, dupilumab, tralokinumab and upadacitinib, are new treatments for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). We evaluated the efficacy and the costs of these targeted systemic therapies in the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe AD. Methods: The clinical efficacy was assessed considering the results of a previous network meta-analysis (NMA). The analysis involved five therapies approved in Italy for the treatment of moderate to severe AD: abrocitinib (ABR), baricitinib (BAR), dupilumab (DUP), tralokinumab (TRA) and upadacitinib (UPA). According to the NMA, the cost of the treatment was based on the number of administrations dispensed at 16 weeks and the clinical efficacy was measured by the number needed to treat (NNT) compared to placebo using the improvement ≥ 75% (EASI-75) or ≥ 90 (EASI-90) from baseline of the eczema area and severity index (EASI). Only the ex-factory price of the targeted systemic therapies was considered. The cost per NNT was adopted as a cost-effectiveness indicator. Results: At 16 weeks, the cost per NNT based on EASI-75 was lower for UPA 15 mg (€ 6,384.00) compared to BAR 4 mg (€ 11,619.73) and 2 mg (€ 14,524.66), ABR 100 mg (€ 16,265.22), DUP 300 mg (€ 16,115.04) and TRA 300 mg (€ 31,710.24). UPA 15 (€ 8,512.00) also showed the lower cost per NNT based on EASI-90 at 16 weeks compared to BAR 4 mg (€ 14,788.75) and 2 mg (€ 20,862.70), ABR 100 mg (€ 25,922.69), DUP 300 mg (€ 25,992.00) and TRA 300 mg (€ 41,067.36). Conclusions: The findings show that upadacitinib is the most cost-effective option (cost per NNT) for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

Cerebral Embolic Protection in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Using the Sentinel Cerebral Protection System: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) plays a vital role in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Despite the mortality benefit of TAVI, embolic stroke remains a feared complication. As a result, transcatheter cerebral embolic protection (TCEP) devices have been developed to reduce this risk. Given the ongoing debate of TCEP in TAVI, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials to date to identify outcomes of periprocedural stroke using the Sentinel™ cerebral protection system (CPS). MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were utilized from inception until 12/2023. PRISMA criteria was utilized. Keywords included "cerebral embolic protection", "sentinel cerebral protection system", "transcatheter aortic valve implantation", and "transcatheter aortic valve replacement". Primary outcome was periprocedural stroke. Secondary outcomes included periprocedural disabling and non-disabling stroke, all-cause mortality, transient ischemic attack, delirium, acute kidney injury, vascular complications, bleeding, and pacemaker implantation. Risk ratios (RR) were measured via Mantel-Haenszel method with fixed analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed via chi-squared and Higgin's I2 test. Four trials with 3528 patients were assessed. SAPIEN 3 was the most common bioprosthetic valve used. The average age was 79.4years with 41.9% of the sample size being females. The most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and coronary artery disease. There was no difference in periprocedural stroke in patients who underwent TAVI with the Sentinel™ CPS compared to no TCEP (RR 0.75, P = 0.12). Periprocedural disabling strokes were less likely in those who underwent TAVI with the Sentinel™ CPS compared to no TCEP (RR 0.41, P = 0.02) with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 123. All other outcomes did not reach statistical significance. In our analysis, there was no difference between TAVI with the Sentinel™ CPS compared to TAVI without TCEP in regard to risk of periprocedural stroke; however, it was associated with a decreased risk of periprocedural disabling stroke.

516 - Comparative efficacy of targeted systemic therapies with topical corticosteroids for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: an updated network meta-analysis

Abstract Introduction Network meta-analysis (NMA) provides useful information for medical decision makers via comprehensive indirect comparisons across therapies. As the targeted systemic therapy options for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) continue to grow, it is critical to update NMAs as well. Objectives To assess the comparative efficacy of targeted systemic therapies with concomitant topical corticosteroids (TCS) in moderate-to-severe AD by including the latest Phase 3 combination therapy data for abrocitinib, lebrikizumab, and dupilumab in the NMA presented in Thyssen et al, 2021.1 Methods Data from the Phase 3 combination therapy trial for lebrikizumab in moderate-to-severe AD (ADhere [NCT04250337]) as well as an additional abrocitinib-dupilumab head-to-head Phase 3 trial (JADE DARE [NCT04345367]) were included in the analyses along with other eligible trials for abrocitinib, baricitinib, dupilumab, tralokinumab, and upadacitinib identified through a systematic literature review in Thyssen et al., 2021. Outcomes included ≥90% and ≥75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 90, EASI 75) from baseline, ≥4-point improvement in Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline (ΔNRS ≥4), and Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) with a ≥2-point reduction from baseline (IGA 0/1), at the week 16 timepoint of each study. Bayesian NMA was performed with fixed and random effects models, with and without baseline risk-adjustment; fit statistics were assessed. Inconsistency was assessed via unrelated mean relative effects models. Odds ratio (OR), number needed to treat (NNT), placebo-unadjusted absolute response rate (ARR), and Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve (SUCRA) scores were estimated. Statistical significance was assessed by OR 95% credible intervals excluding 1. Results The updated NMA analyzed 8 unique placebo-controlled trials and 1 active-controlled trial involving 4391 patients in 23 arms across 6 targeted therapies. Fit statistics supported fixed effects models across outcomes. All therapies were statistically more efficacious than placebo across all outcomes except baricitinib 2 mg for EASI-90. For EASI-90, upadacitinib 30 mg had the most favorable response estimates (ARR=63.2%, OR=11.3, NNT=2.0, SUCRA=98.3%), followed by abrocitinib 200 mg (ARR=55.8%, OR=8.3, NNT=2.4, SUCRA=90.0%), dupilumab 300 mg (ARR=44.8%, OR=5.3, NNT=3.2, SUCRA=68.3%), abrocitinib 100 mg (ARR=44.0%, OR=5.2, NNT=3.3, SUCRA=65.8%), upadacitinib 15 mg (ARR=42.9%, OR=4.9, NNT=3.4, SUCRA=64.3%), and the newly added lebrikizumab 250 mg (ARR=28.9%, OR=2.7, NNT=6.6, SUCRA=39.9%). The rank order for EASI-75 was similar (upadacitinib 30 mg [ARR=78.3%, OR=9.5, NNT=2.0, SUCRA=98.5%], abrocitinib 200 mg [ARR=73.0%,OR=7.1, NNT=2.3, SUCRA=89.1%], upadacitinib 15 mg [ARR=66.1%, OR=5.1, NNT=2.7, SUCRA=71.0%], dupilumab 300 mg [ARR=65.3%, OR=5.0, NNT=2.7, SUCRA=69.2%], abrocitinib 100 mg [ARR=60.3%, OR=4.0, NNT=3.2, SUCRA=54.0%], and lebrikizumab 250 mg [ARR=54.5%, OR=3.1, NNT=3.8, SUCRA=41.2%]). For ΔNRS ≥4, upadacitinib 30 mg had the most favorable response (ARR=68.9%, OR=10.0, NNT=2.1, SUCRA=99.9%), followed by upadacitinib 15 mg (ARR=56.6%, OR=5.9, NNT=2.7, SUCRA=84.0%), abrocitinib 200 mg (ARR=51.6%, OR=4.8, NNT=3.1, SUCRA=75.6%), dupilumab 300 mg (ARR=49.3%, OR=4.4, NNT=3.3, SUCRA=67.0%), baricitinib 4 mg (ARR=44.4%, OR=3.6, NNT=4.0, SUCRA=57.7%), and abrocitinib 100 mg (ARR=35.9%, OR=2.5, NNT=5.9, SUCRA=36.1%); lebrikizumab 250 mg ranked eighth (ARR=33.4%, OR=2.3, NNT=7.0, SUCRA=31.3%). For IGA 0/1, upadacitinib 30 mg (ARR=66.5%,OR=11.7, NNT=2.0, SUCRA=99.6%) had the most favorable estimates, followed by abrocitinib 200 mg (ARR=53.5%, OR=6.8, NNT=2.6, SUCRA=86.6%), upadacitinib 15 mg (ARR=48.0%, OR=5.4, NNT=3.0, SUCRA=76.2%), dupilumab 300 mg (ARR=42.1%, OR=4.3, NNT=3.7, SUCRA=64.7%), abrocitinib 100 mg (ARR=39.1%, OR=3.8, NNT=4.1, SUCRA=56.1%), and baricitinib 4 mg (ARR=30.6%, OR=2.6, NNT=6.4, SUCRA=39.9%); lebrikizumab 250 mg ranked seventh (ARR=29.2%, OR=2.4, NNT=7.0, SUCRA=35.8%). Baricitinib 2 mg and tralokinumab 300 mg were generally ranked lower across outcomes. Conclusions Among targeted therapies for moderate-to-severe AD used with concomitant TCS for 16 weeks, upadacitinib 30 mg remained the most efficacious therapy in this NMA, generally followed by abrocitinib 200 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg or dupilumab 300 mg, abrocitinib 100 mg, and baricitinib 4 mg or lebrikizumab 250 mg.

544 - Cost-per-responder analysis of tralokinumab versus dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in the US and Canada

Abstract Introduction/Background Biologic treatments such as tralokinumab and dupilumab are therapeutic options for adult patients with moderate-to-­severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who do not achieve adequate control with topical treatments or phototherapy. To date, no trials have been conducted to directly evaluate the relative efficacy of these biologic treatments. Objectives Applying indirect comparison of efficacy, we examined the cost-per-responder of tralokinumab compared to dupilumab in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) for the treatment of moderate-to-serve AD in the United States (US) and Canada. Methods A cost-per-responder analysis was undertaken considering the Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 (EASI-75) and Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA-0/1) response criteria over a 32-week period. For each treatment, the cost-per-­responder was computed by multiplying the treatment cost by the number needed to treat (NNT). Efficacy data were derived from an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) utilizing patient-level data from ECZTRA-3 (tralokinumab) and aggregate data from LIBERTY AD CHRONOS (dupilumab). Treatment cost was defined as the drug cost of the biologic treatment with a duration corresponding to 32 weeks. TCS cost was not considered. Treatments were assumed to be administered every 2 weeks (Q2W). The costs were estimated based on Wholesale Acquisition Costs (WAC) from the US and ex-factory prices via the McKesson price list for Canada. All prices were converted to US dollars ($). Sensitivity analyses (SA) were conducted with every 4 week (Q4W) dosing beginning at week 16 for 10% and 20% of patients treated with tralokinumab. Results For the US, the average cost-per-responder was $62,714 (Q4W SA: 10%: $61,239; 20%: $59,763) for tralokinumab versus $63,993 for dupilumab considering the EASI-75 response criteria, while the average cost-per-responder was $82,419 (Q4W SA: 10%: $80,480; 20%: $78,450) for tralokinumab versus $118,835 for dupilumab considering the IGA 0/1 response criteria. For Canada, the average cost-per-responder was $22,846 (Q4W SA: 10%: $22,308; 20%: $21,771) for tralokinumab versus $26,475 for dupilumab considering the EASI-75 response criteria, while the average cost-per-responder was $30,024 (Q4W SA: 10%: $29,317; 20%: $28,611) for tralokinumab versus $49,165 for dupilumab considering the IGA 0/1 response criteria. Conclusions Assessing EASI-75 and IGA-0/1 response criteria at 32 weeks, this analysis indicates that tralokinumab in combination with TCS is associated with lower costs-per-responder compared with dupilumab in combination with TCS in the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in the US and Canada.

Distinct age-adjusted D-dimer threshold to rule out acute pulmonary embolism in outpatients and inpatients.

The diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is combinations of clinical probability assessments, plasma D-dimer (DD) test results, and/or computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA). The aim of this study is to explore the appropriate DD cutoff using the immunoturbidimetric method in outpatients and inpatients. We retrospectively enrolled 2689 patients with suspected PE between January 2014 and December 2019. All patients underwent clinical probability assessments, DD tests, and CTPA. We investigated the appropriate cutoff level for plasma DD tests in the correlation analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Among all patients, 1263 were confirmed acute PE. The age-adjusted DD level was determined to be age × 10μg/L (for patients aged >50 years) in outpatients. This cutoff value resulted in a sensitivity of 96.75% and a specificity of 87.02%, with the area under the curve (AUC) of 0.908 and the number needed to treat (NNT) of 1.18. For inpatients, the age-adjusted cutoff values for the biomarker DD demonstrated poor specificity (13.34%) and NNT (9.88). However, when the DD cutoff was adjusted to 2 × the upper limit of normal (ULN), the sensitivity increased to 93.19%, while the specificity remained at 29.55%, with the AUC of 0.610 and the NNT of 4.76. The optimal DD cut-off value was 3010 μg/L (about 5 × ULN), resulting in a sensitivity of 75.22% and specificity of 61.72%, with the AUC of 0.727 and the NNT of 2.7. Using the immunoturbidimetric method to measure DD, an age-adjusted DD cutoff (age × 10μg/L, if aged >50 years) should be considered for outpatients with suspected PE. For inpatients, increasing the DD cutoff value to at least 2 × ULN yields the best test performance.

Abstract WMP94: Quantifying the Enhanced Clinical Benefit of Endovascular Thrombectomy Performed With Contemporary Workflows and Devices

Background: To date, the magnitude of the benefit of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) over medical management in acute ischemic stroke has been quantified by the data of the five breakthrough RCTs of 2015. But contemporary EVT care has faster EVT workflow speeds and achieves higher rates of reperfusion. Updated quantitative estimates of the benefit of EVT vs medical management are needed. Methods: Contemporary FDA-monitored (TIGER/ARISE II) and pivotal (HERMES) EVT trial group differences were quantified for workflow speed (door-to-reperfusion time) and reperfusion rates (eTICI distribution). The projected effect of the faster workflow speed in further improving disability (mRS) outcomes were calculated using established HERMES treatment time-benefit models and the projected effect of higher reperfusion rates using established HERMES eTICI tier-specific outcomes. Results: Contemporary EVT trial groups, compared with pivotal trial EVT groups, had door-to-reperfusion 57 minutes faster (146m vs 89m), successful reperfusion 22.6% more often (71.0% vs 93.6%), and excellent reperfusion 45.1% more often (29.4% vs 74.5%). Figure 1 shows the resulting projected improvements in mRS distributions. For functional independence (mRS 0-2), outcome rates for MM vs pivotal EVT vs contemporary EVT were 25.2% vs 44.6% vs 74.5%. The number needed to treat (NNT) for 1 more patient to achieve functional independence improved from 5.2 to 2.5. For nondisabled outcome (mRS 0-1), outcome rates were 10.1% vs 27.4% vs 46.0%. The NNT for 1 more patient to achieve nondisabled outcome improved from 5.8 to 2.8. Over the entire mRS range, the NNT for 1 more patient to have less disability by at least one mRS level improved from 2.6 to 1.6. Conclusion: Formal modeling indicates that contemporary EVT confers substantially enhanced benefits over medical management. Among every 100 patients treated with EVT, 63 will have a less disabled long-term outcome including 36 more becoming disability-free.

Estimation of the number needed to treat, the number needed to be exposed, and the exposure impact number with instrumental variables

Abstract Objectives The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) is an efficacy index defined as the average number of patients needed to treat to attain one additional treatment benefit. In observational studies, specifically in epidemiology, the adequacy of the populationwise NNT is questionable since the exposed group characteristics may substantially differ from the unexposed. To address this issue, groupwise efficacy indices were defined: the Exposure Impact Number (EIN) for the exposed group and the Number Needed to be Exposed (NNE) for the unexposed. Each defined index answers a unique research question since it targets a unique sub-population. In observational studies, the group allocation is typically affected by confounders that might be unmeasured. The available estimation methods that rely either on randomization or the sufficiency of the measured covariates for confounding control result in statistically inconsistent estimators of the true EIN, NNE, and NNT. This study presents a theoretical framework for statistically consistent point and interval estimation of the NNE, EIN and NNE in observational studies with unmeasured confounders. Methods Using Rubin’s potential outcomes framework, this study explicitly defines the NNT and its derived indices, EIN and NNE, as causal measures. Then, we use instrumental variables to introduce a novel method to estimate the three aforementioned indices in observational studies where the omission of unmeasured confounders cannot be ruled out. To illustrate the novel methods, we present two analytical examples – double logit and double probit models. Next, a corresponding simulation study and a real-world data example are presented. Results This study provides an explicit causal formulation of the EIN, NNE, and NNT indices and a comprehensive theoretical framework for their point and interval estimation using the G-estimators in observational studies with unmeasured confounders. The analytical proofs and the corresponding simulation study illustrate the improved performance of the new estimation method compared to the available methods in terms of consistency and the confidence intervals empirical coverage rates. Conclusions In observational studies, traditional estimation methods to estimate the EIN, NNE, or NNT result in statistically inconsistent estimators. We introduce a novel estimation method that overcomes this pitfall. The novel method produces consistent estimators and reliable CIs for the true EIN, NNE, and NNT. Such a method may facilitate more accurate clinical decision-making and the development of efficient public health policies.

COST PER REMISSION FOR MIRIKIZUMAB VS USTEKINUMAB IN THE MAINTENANCE PHASE FOR MODERATELY-TO-SEVERELY ACTIVE ULCERATIVE COLITIS TREATMENT FROM THE UNITED STATES COMMERCIAL PAYER PERSPECTIVE

Abstract BACKGROUND In phase 3 studies, mirikizumab (MIRI), an IL-23p19 antibody, demonstrated efficacy vs placebo in adult patients with moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (UC). It is being developed for the United States Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of UC. Ustekinumab (USTE), an IL-12/23p40 antibody, is currently the most utilized second line treatment in UC patients. Physicians may prescribe MIRI in a similar placement to USTE, and payers may compare them when making formulary decisions for IL-23 inhibitors. Given the need for continued maintenance therapy to manage UC, it is of interest to evaluate the relative cost-efficiency of MIRI vs USTE. We estimated and compared the cost of MIRI vs USTE for achieving remission in one additional patient during the maintenance phase in biologic/Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi)-experienced patients with UC. METHODS This study used a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published randomized controlled trials of maintenance phase therapy to derive the number needed to treat (NNT) for achieving clinical remission among those who responded to induction therapy. In NMA, clinical remission was defined as a total Mayo score of ≤2 points, with no individual sub-score &amp;gt;1. An Excel-based analytic model was developed to estimate cost per additional patient achieving clinical remission at the end of maintenance trial period. The model included the cost of maintenance therapy from a US commercial payer perspective and the NNT of achieving clinical remission for MIRI and USTE in the biologic/JAKi-experienced population. Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) of USTE was taken from Micromedex Redbook. A scenario with USTE biosimilar was also considered where NNT was considered the same as USTE, but the WAC was considered 50% lower than the current WAC of USTE. RESULTS The costs per biologic/JAKi-experienced patient achieving clinical remission during the maintenance phase were $501,472 and $1,027,799 for MIRI and USTE. The lower cost per remission for MIRI in maintenance was the result of both lower relative NNT and lower anticipated WAC of MIRI compared to USTE. The scenario also resulted in a comparable cost per remission for MIRI vs a USTE biosimilar. CONCLUSION MIRI is projected to have a lower cost per remission during maintenance therapy compared to USTE. Given the need for long-term treatment for this chronic condition, MIRI appears to be a cost-efficient treatment option based on its lower NNT and anticipated acquisition cost in the maintenance phase.

P756 Efficacy and safety of medical therapies for maintenance of surgically induced remission in Crohn’s disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract Background Approximately half of patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) undergo surgical resection in first decade after diagnosis. Majority experience disease recurrence following surgery requiring further intervention. There is limited evidence on efficacy of medical therapies in this setting. We performed a network meta-analysis to evaluate comparative efficacies of medical therapies for the prevention of clinical and endoscopic relapse after surgical resection. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials between inception and October 2023 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes assessed were clinical relapse, endoscopic relapse, and safety outcomes including adverse events (AE), withdrawal due to AE, and serious AE. We performed random-effects network meta- analysis using a frequentist approach, and estimated relative risk (RRs), 95% CI values and used GRADE to ascertain certainty of evidence. Results A total of 37 RCTs comprising 4411 patients were included. On network meta-analysis of clinical relapse outcome, there was moderate certainty of evidence favouring adalimumab (RR 0.14, 95% CI [0.03-0.7]) over placebo with number needed to treat (NNT) of 3. There was low certainty of evidence supporting 5-amainosalycilates (RR 0.81, 95% CI [0.71-0.92]; NNT of 13) and purine analogues (RR 0.82, 95% CI [0.72-0.93]; NNT of 14) but the effect size was trivial (Figure 1). Whereas for endoscopic relapse outcome, vedolizumab (RR 0.23, 95% CI [0.07-0.8]) and adalimumab (RR 0.32, 95% CI [0.17-0.62], low certainty) and infliximab (RR 0.63, 95% CI [0.48-0.82], low certainty) were the only agents superior to placebo but not purine analogues (RR 0.87, 95% CI [0.7-1.08], very low certainty), 5-ASA (RR 1.04, 95% CI [0.85-1.26], very low certainty), antibiotics (RR 1.13, 95% CI [0.83-1.53], very low certainty), probiotics (RR 1.15, 95% CI [0.94-1.39], very low certainty), vitamin-D (RR 0.9, 95% CI [0.62-1.31], very low certainty) and curcumin (RR 1.17, 95% CI [0.73-1.87], low certainty). On analysis of total adverse events outcomes, all therapies were safe. Conclusion On network meta-analysis, adalimumab had a large magnitude of effect size for preventing clinical and endoscopic relapse (low certainty), vedolizumab a large magnitude for preventing endoscopic relapse (low certainty) and 5-ASA a small magnitude result for preventing clinical relapse (low certainty). Overall certainty of evidence is very low to low suggesting need for further research in this field.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis for vesicoureteral reflux: which subgroups of children benefit the most?

While the Randomized Intervention for Children with Vesicoureteral Reflux (RIVUR) trial found that long-term antimicrobial prophylaxis reduced the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) recurrences by 50%, 10 children had to be treated for one to benefit (i.e., observed number needed to treat (NNT) of 10). Accordingly, we re-analyzed RIVUR data to systematically identify subgroups of children with vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) with a smaller NNT. Using patient-level data from the RIVUR trial, we applied penalized regression methods including the baseline age, VUR grade, type of index UTI, and bowel-bladder dysfunction (BBD) as covariates to identify subgroups. We identified four relevant subgroups of children that appear to benefit from long-term antimicrobial prophylaxis, all with observed NNTs smaller than or equal to 5: children with grade IV VUR, BBD, and febrile index UTI (1% of the sample), children with BBD and febrile index UTI (7% of the sample), children with BBD (12% of the sample), and children with grade IV VUR (8% of the sample). Use of long-term antimicrobial prophylaxis appears to be particularly relevant for children with BBD (and any grade of VUR) and those with grade IV VUR (regardless of BBD status). However, because details regarding the treatment of BBD are not available, further studies are needed to fully determine the role of prophylactic antimicrobials in the management of children with VUR who have BBD.

A clinical study evaluating the combination of LISA and SNIPPV for the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants

To compare the therapeutic effect of less invasive surfactant administration (LISA) followed by synchronized nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (SNIPPV) and traditional intubate-Surfactant-Extubate (InSurE) strategy for the treatment of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS). A single-center, non-randomized and single- blinded study Tertiary neonatal intensive care unit 89 infants enrolled were preterm with gestational age < 366/7 weeks and clinically diagnosed with neonatal RDS (NRDS) Interventions: 32 infants were assigned to the LISA + SNIPPV group and 57 infants to the InSurE + nCPAP group. No statistically significant differences were noted in the baseline characteristics of the enrolled infants. A lower proportion of infants developed BPD in the LISA + SNIPPV group compared to the InSurE + CPAP group [10 (31.25%) vs. 21 (36.84%), P > 0.05]; however, there was no statistically significant difference. The number needed to treat (NNT) with LISA + SNIPPV to prevent BPD development is 18. The mortality rate was not significant between our study arms [1 (3.13%) vs 2 (3.51%), P > 0.05]. There were no statistically significant differences in the durations (days) of MV [(12.18 ± 13.89) vs. (11.35 ± 11.61), P > 0.05], oxygen therapy [(35.03 ± 19.13) vs. (39.75 ± 17.91), P > 0.05] and re-intubation rates [(0.19 ± 0.40) vs. (0.21 ± 0.45), P > 0.05] between the two study groups. In terms of complications, the incidence of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) [24 (75.00%) vs. 27 (47.37%), P < 0.05] was higher and a lower rate of disturbed liver function [1 (3.23%) vs. 19 (33.33%), P < 0.05] were observed in the LISA + SNIPPV group. Acid–base imbalances were reportedly significantly higher in the InSurE group (P < 0.05). No significant differences in other complications were noted. In the interventional group, FiO2 requirements were significantly lower up until the 3rd week of treatment [FiO2 at day 0, (30.75 ± 4.78) vs. (34.66 ± 9.83), P < 0.05; FiO2 at day 21, (25.32 ± 3.74) vs. (29.11 ± 8.17), P < 0.05], as was RSS on days 2 [(0.77 ± 0.38) vs. (1.94 ± 0.75), P < 0.05] and 3 [(0.66 ± 0.33) vs. (1.89 ± 0.82), P < 0.05] after treatment. Additionally, infants in the standard group had a significantly prolonged hospital stay (days) [(45.97 ± 16.93) vs. (54.40 ± 16.26), P < 0.05]. The combination of LISA and SNIPPV for NRDS can potentially lower the rate of BPD, FiO2 demand and shorten the length of hospitalization.

Cost-per-Responder Analysis of Tralokinumab versus Dupilumab in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis in the US and Canada

Introduction and objective: Biologic treatments such as tralokinumab and dupilumab are therapeutic options for adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who do not achieve adequate control with topical treatments or phototherapy. To date, no trials have been conducted to directly evaluate the relative efficacy of these biologic treatments. Applying indirect comparison of efficacy, we examined the cost-per-responder of tralokinumab compared to dupilumab in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) for the treatment of moderate-to-serve AD in the United States (US) and Canada.&#x0D; Method: A cost-per-responder analysis was undertaken considering the Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 (EASI-75) and Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA-0/1) response criteria over a 32-week period. For each treatment, the cost-per-responder was computed by multiplying the treatment cost by the number needed to treat (NNT). Efficacy data were derived from an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) utilizing patient-level data from ECZTRA-3 (tralokinumab) and aggregate data from LIBERTY AD CHRONOS (dupilumab). Treatment cost was defined as the drug cost of the biologic treatment with a duration corresponding to 32 weeks. TCS cost was not considered. Treatments were assumed to be administered every 2 weeks (Q2W). The costs were estimated based on Wholesale Acquisition Costs (WAC) from the US and ex-factory prices via the McKesson price list for Canada. All prices were converted to US dollars ($). Sensitivity analyses (SA) were conducted with every 4 week (Q4W) dosing beginning at week 16 for 10% and 20% of patients treated with tralokinumab.&#x0D; Results: For the US, the average cost-per-responder was $62,714 (Q4W SA: 10%: $61,239; 20%: $59,763) for tralokinumab versus $63,993 for dupilumab considering the EASI-75 response criteria, while the average cost-per-responder was $82,419 (Q4W SA: 10%: $80,480; 20%: $78,450) for tralokinumab versus $118,835 for dupilumab considering the IGA 0/1 response criteria. For Canada, the average cost-per-responder was $22,846 (Q4W SA: 10%: $22,308; 20%: $21,771) for tralokinumab versus $26,475 for dupilumab considering the EASI-75 response criteria, while the average cost-per-responder was $30,024 (Q4W SA: 10%: $29,317; 20%: $28,611) for tralokinumab versus $49,165 for dupilumab considering the IGA 0/1 response criteria.&#x0D; Conclusion: Assessing EASI-75 and IGA-0/1 response criteria at 32 weeks, this analysis indicates that tralokinumab in combination with TCS is associated with lower costs-per-responder compared with dupilumab in combination with TCS in the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in the US and Canada.

Effectiveness and Safety of Biosimilars in Pediatric Non-infectious Uveitis: Real-Life Data from the International AIDA Network Uveitis Registry.

Since many biological drug patents have expired, biosimilar agents (BIOs) have been developed; however, there are still some reservations in their use, especially in childhood. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors BIOs as treatment for pediatric non-infectious uveitis (NIU). Data from pediatric patients with NIU treated with TNF inhibitors BIOs were drawn from the international AutoInflammatory Disease Alliance (AIDA) registries dedicated to uveitis and Behçet's disease. The effectiveness and safety of BIOs were assessed in terms of frequency of relapses, risk for developing ocular flares, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), glucocorticoids (GCs)-sparing effect, drug survival, frequency of ocular complications, and adverse drug event (AE). Forty-seven patients (77 affected eyes) were enrolled. The BIOs employed were adalimumab (ADA) (89.4%), etanercept (ETA) (5.3%), and infliximab (IFX) (5.3%). The number of relapses 12months prior to BIOs and at last follow-up was 282.14 and 52.43 per 100 patients/year. The relative risk of developing ocular flares before BIOs introduction compared to the period following the start of BIOs was 4.49 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.38-5.98, p = 0.004). The number needed to treat (NNT) for ocular flares was 3.53. Median BCVA was maintained during the whole BIOs treatment (p = 0.92). A significant GCs-sparing effect was observed throughout the treatment period (p = 0.002). The estimated drug retention rate (DRR) at 12-, 24-, and 36-month follow-up were 92.7, 83.3, and 70.8%, respectively. The risk rate for developing structural ocular complications was 89.9/100 patients/year before starting BIOs and 12.7/100 patients/year during BIOs treatment, with a risk ratio of new ocular complications without BIOs of 7.1 (CI 3.4-14.9, p = 0.0003). Three minor AEs were reported. TNF inhibitors BIOs are effective in reducing the number of ocular uveitis relapses, preserving visual acuity, allowing a significant GCs-sparing effect, and preventing structural ocular complications. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05200715.

Comparative profiles of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat for chronic constipation: a systematic literature review with meta-analysis and number needed to treat/harm

ObjectiveTo comprehensively evaluate the efficacy, safety, patient symptoms, and quality-of-life (QoL) of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat as treatment for chronic constipation (CC).DesignSystematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis (MA). Literature searches were conducted on PubMed and Embase using the Ovid platform.MethodsSLR including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies was conducted to identify the overall efficacy and safety of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat. Thereafter, MA was performed using only RCTs. The number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) analyses were additionally conducted.Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome was efficacy regarding change in spontaneous bowel movements. Secondary outcomes included safety, constipation-related symptoms, and QoL.ResultsTwenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria for the SLR: 17 RCTs, 4 observational studies, and 3 single-arm trials. Feasibility assessment for the MA resulted in 14 studies available for safety data analysis, and 8 available for efficacy analysis, respectively. Three drugs showed similar efficacy in the MA and NNT analysis. However, the NNH analysis revealed distinct safety profiles: lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat were linked to the highest risk of nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, respectively.ConclusionThe current study provides an updated overview of the efficacy, safety, patient symptoms, and QoL of the three drugs with different mechanisms of action for CC treatment.The findings could help physicians adopt an individualized approach for treating patients with CC in clinical practice.

Benefit of Topical Combination Therapy for Acne: Analyzing Effect Size Using Number Needed to Treat.

Topical acne trials often are confounded by high vehicle response rates and differing outcome measures, making it difficult to compare treatments. Number needed to treat (NNT) can be a simple, clinically meaningful way to indirectly compare treatment options without head-to-head data. NNT is the number of patients who need to be treated with an intervention to observe one additional patient successfully achieving a desired outcome versus vehicle/placebo. While treatment attributes such as adverse events may not be captured, lower NNT is a good indicator of a more effective treatment. Following a search of combination topical treatments for acne vulgaris, all treatments that reported pivotal trial efficacy data consistent with the 2018 FDA definition of success were included in NNT analyses.&nbsp; Results: Of 13 treatments, 7 reported 12-week treatment success rates in 11 phase 3 trials, with similar baseline demographics/disease severity. Treatment success ranged from 26.8% with tretinoin 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide (BPO) 3% cream to 50% with triple-combination clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/adapalene 0.15%/BPO 3.1% gel. NNTs for the triple-combination gel were 4 and 5 (from 2 pivotal trials). Adapalene 0.3%/BPO 2.5% gel had an NNT of 5. Tretinoin/BPO had the largest range between trials, with NNTs of 4 and 9. The other 4 treatments had NNTs ranging from 6 to 8. A comparison of combination topical acne treatment trial data, using the same treatment outcome and similar patient populations, resulted in triple-combination clindamycin phosphate/adapalene/BPO gel and adapalene/BPO gel having the most favorable NNTs.J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(2):42-49.&nbsp; doi:10.36849/JDD.7927.

Nationwide Target Trial Emulation Evaluating the Clinical Effectiveness of Oral Antivirals for COVID-19 in Korea.

Despite the proven effectiveness of oral antivirals against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in randomized trials, their clinical reevaluation is vital in the context of widespread immunity and milder prevalent variants. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of oral antivirals for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This retrospective cohort study utilized a target trial emulation framework to analyze patients with COVID-19 aged 60+ from January to December 2022. Data were obtained from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency and Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. The study involved 957,036 patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 243,360 treated with molnupiravir, each compared with the matched control groups. Primary outcome was progression to critical COVID-19 requiring advanced respiratory support. Secondary outcomes included progression to severe COVID-19, need for supplemental oxygen, and death within 30 days of the onset of COVID-19. Number needed to treat (NNT) derived from the absolute risk reduction. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was significantly associated with a reduced risk of severe (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.823; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.803-0.843), critical (aOR, 0.560; 95% CI, 0.503-0.624), and fatal COVID-19 (aOR, 0.694; 95% CI, 0.647-0.744). Similarly, molnupiravir reduced the risk of severe (aOR, 0.895; 95% CI, 0.856-0.937), critical (aOR, 0.672; 95% CI, 0.559-0.807), and fatal cases (aOR, 0.679; 95% CI, 0.592-0.779). NNTs for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir were 203.71 (severe), 1,230.12 (critical), and 691.50 (death); for molnupiravir, they were 352.70 (severe), 1,398.62 (critical), and 862.98 (death). Higher effectiveness was associated with older adults, unvaccinated individuals, and the late pandemic phase. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and molnupiravir are effective in preventing progression to severe disease in elderly adults with COVID-19.