1 / 26

The Choice

The Choice. atrial fibrillation patients increased risk of stroke can reduce with warfarin, but increased bleeding risk without treatment 100 patients will suffer: 12 strokes (6 major, six minor), 3 serious gi bleeds in 1 year

kasa
Download Presentation

The Choice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Choice • atrial fibrillation patients increased risk of stroke • can reduce with warfarin, but increased bleeding risk • without treatment 100 patients will suffer: • 12 strokes (6 major, six minor), 3 serious gi bleeds in 1 year • warfarin would increase bleeds in 100 patients to 5 per year (2 additional bleeds) • how many strokes must we prevent to make it worth taking warfarin with increased risk of bleeding?

  2. PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT STROKE THRESHOLDS FOR WARFARIN

  3. Physician and patient mean stroke threshold for warfarin • Baseline risk of 12 strokes and 3 major bleeds in 100 patients over 2 years • Given warfarin would increase the risk of major bleeds to 5 in 100 patients, we then determined the minimum number of strokes that needed to be prevented for a participant to feel warfarin was justified

  4. The Choice • without treatment 100 patients will suffer: • 12 strokes (six major, six minor), 3 serious gi bleeds in 1 year • warfarin would decrease strokes in 100 patients to 4 per year (8 fewer strokes, 4 major, minor) • how many bleeds would you accept in 100 patients over a year, and still be willing to administer/take warfarin?

  5. Physician and patient mean bleeding threshold for warfarin • Baseline risk of 12 strokes and 3 major bleeds in 100 patients over 2 years • Given warfarin would decrease the risk of stroke to 4 in 100 patients, we then determined the maximum number of excess bleeds that participants were willing to accept

  6. Values and Preferences • every intervention has benefits, risks, inconvenience, costs • decision a trade-off • values and preferences differ • Cochrane reviews particularly vulnerable because world-wide • Cochrane reviews shouldn’t make recommendations

  7. Issues for this Workshop • should Cochrane reviews structure discussion? • highlight tradeoffs and potential impact of values • highlight implementation, applicability issues • guideline developers using Cochrane reviews • should they grade recommendations? • should they use a uniform system (and if so, what should it look like)

  8. Osteoporosis • Common, serious morbidity • vertebral and non-vertebral fractures • Many agents available • what should we offer women • Evidence versus recommendations

  9. Relative Risk with 95%CI of Vertebral Fracture After Treatment with Calcium Favours Calcium Favours Control Prevention Trials & Chevalley 0.45 (0.11 to 1.88) (n = 45) & Recker (w/fractures) 0.58 (0.35 to 0.97) (n = 92) & (n = 99) Recker (w/o fractures) 1.36 (0.70 to 2.62) & (n = 122) Reid 0.45 (0.11 to 1.94) & (n = 177) Riggs 0.90 (0.38 to 2.18) & Hansson 0.87 ( 0.10 to 7.71) (n = 41) & Pooled Estimate 0.77 (0.54 to 1.09) (n = 576) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Relative Risk, 95% CI

  10. Relative Risk with 95% CI of Non-Vertebral Fracture after Treatment with Calcium Favours Calcium Favours Control Prevention Trials ' Chevally 0.48 ( 0.07 to 3.38) (n = 45) ' (n = 177) Riggs 0.93 ( 0.44 to 1.96) ' (n = 222) Pooled Estimate 0.86 (0.43 to 1.72) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Relative Risk, 95% CI

  11. Relative Risk with 95% CI for Vertebral Fractures after Treatment with Vitamin D Favours Vitamin D Favours Control Standard Vitamin D (IU) ' Baeksgaard(1998) 0.33(0.01 to 8.06) (N =160) Hydroxylated Vitamin D (ug) ' Gallagher (1990) 0.90 (0.42 to 1.89) (N =50) ' Orimo (1994) 0.37 (0.09 to 1.44) (N = 80) ' Ott (1989) 1.46 ( 0.59 to 3.62) (N = 86) ' Tilyard (1992) 0.43 ( 0.31 to 0.61) (N = 622) ' (N =32) Guesens (1986) 0.88 (0.43 to 1.80) ' Orimo (1987) 0.46 (0.31 to 0.69) (N = 86) (N = 14) ' Caniggia (1984) 0.20 (0.01 to 3.54) Pooled Hydroxylated Vitamin D Estimate ' 0.61 ( 0.42 to 0.87) (N = 970) ' Pooled Estimate 0.60 (0.42 to 0.84) (N =1130) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

  12. Relative Risk with 95% CI for Non-Vertebral Fractures after Treatment with Vitamin D Favours Vitamin D Favours Control Standard Vitamin D (IU) ' (N =3270) Chapuy (1992) 0.75 ( 0.61 to 0.91) ' Lips (1996) 1.04 (0.77 to 1.41) (N =1916) ' Dawson-Hughes* (1997) 0.45 (0.22 to 0.91) (N =213) Pooled Standard Vitamin D Estimate ' (N = 5399) 0.78 (0.55 TO 1.09) Hydroxylated Vitamin D (ug) ' Ott (1989) 2.20 ( 0.52 to 9.24) (N = 86) ' Tilyard (1992) 0.50 ( 0.25 to 1.00) (N =622) ' Orimo (1994) 1.10 (0.02 to 2.0) (N = 80) Pooled Hydroxylated Vitamin D Estimate ' 0.87 (0.29 to 2.59) (N =788) ' (N = 6187) Pooled Estimate 0.77 (0.57 to 1.04) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 * Prevention Trial

  13. RR of Vertebral Fracture after Treatment with HRT Favours HRT Favours Control ' (N = 75) Lufkin 1992 0.63 (0.28, 1.43) ' (N = 193) Greenspan 1998 (0.70 (0.06, 7.55) ' (N = 32) Wilalawansa 1998 0.40 (0.09, 1.77) ' (N = 2763) Hulley 1998 0.74 (0.37, 1.47) ' (N = 52) Alexandersen 1999 2.78 ( 0.12, 65.09) ' (N = 16608) WHI 2002 0.65 (0.44, 0.97) ' (N = 19723) Pooled Estimate 0.66 (0.49, 0.90) 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Relative Risk (95% CI)

  14. RR of Non-Vertebral Fracture after Treatment with HRT Favours HRT Favours Control ' (N =193) Greenspan 1998 (0.70 (0.22, 2.22) ' (N =232) Komulainen 1997 0.40 (0.16, 0.99) ' (N =36) Wilalawansa 1998 1.00 (0.07, 14.79) ' (N =2763) Hulley 1998 0.90 (0.69, 1.19) ' (N =612) Hosking 1998 0.98 ( 0.29, 3.34)) ' (N =50) Alexandersen 1999 0.31 ( 0.03, 2.76) ' (N =16608) WHI 2002 0.68 ( 0.46, 0.99) ' (N =20494) Pooled Estimate 0.78 (0.64, 0.96) 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Relative Risk (95% CI)

  15. Relative Risk with 95% CI for Vertebral & Non-Vertebral Fractures After Treatment with Raloxifene Favours Raloxifene Favours Control Vertebral Fractures ' (N = 7705) Ettinger 0.59 (0.50 to 0.70) ' Lufkin 1.15 (0.75 to 1.75) ( N = 143) Pooled Vertebral Fracture Estimate ' 0.64 ( 0.55 to 0.75) (N = 7848) Non-Vertebral Fractures ' ( N = 7705) Ettinger 0.91 (0.79 to 1.06) ' (N= 143) Lufkin 0.51 ( 0.12 to 2.16) Pooled Non Vertebral Fracture Estimate ' 0.91 ( 0.78 to 1.06) (N = 7848) Fixed Effects Model 0.1 1 10 * All Trials Secondary Treatment Vertebral fracture results from Lufkin trial based on 15% cutoff in reduction of vertebrae ( baseline to 1 year)

  16. Weighted Relative Risk for Vertebral Fractures after Treatment with Etidronate Favours Etidronate Favours Control Prevention Trials & (N = 209 ) Watts 0.52 (0.19 to 1.40) & (N =214) Watts* 0.47 (0.14 to 1.61) & (N = 738) Pooled Prevention Estimate 0.62 (0.30 to 1.27) Treatment Trials & Montessori 0.14 (0.01 to 2.67) (N = 80) & (N = 57) Pacifici 1.10 (0.35 to 3.44) & (N = 66) Storm 0.64 (0.35 to 1.17) & Wimalawansa 1998 0.67 (0.21 to 2.18) (N = 35) & Lyritis 0.47 ( 0.17 to 1.36) (N = 100) & (N = 338) Pooled Treatment Estimate 0.68 (0.42 to 1.10) & Pooled Estimate 0.63 ( 0.44 to 0.99) (N = 1076) 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 Relative Risk, 95% CI Osteoporotic and Non-Osteoporotic Populations (Primary Prevention Trials: Herd, Meunier, and Pouilles [n = 315] not included due to low incidence of fractures) * Treatment and Control Groups Received Phosphate

  17. Weighted Relative Risk for Non-Vertebral Fractures after Treatment with Etidronate Favours Etidronate Favours Control Prevention Trials & (N = 209) Watts 1.23 (0.68 to 2.22) & Watts** 1.16 (0.57 to 2.35) (N = 214 ) & Meunier 0.71 (0.15 to 3.32) (N = 54 ) & (N = 109 ) Pouilles 0.55 (0.16 to 1.9) & (N = 586 ) Pooled Prevention Trial Estimate: 1.06 (0.71 to 1.60) Treatment Trials & (N = 66 ) Storm 0.85 (0.31 to 2.37) (N = 35 ) & Wimalawansa 1998 1.06 (0.12 to 9.24) & Lyritis 0.64 (0.18 to 2.30) (N = 100) & Pooled Treatment Trial Estimate: 0.79 (0.38 to 1.67) (N = 281) & Pooled Estimate 0.99 (0.69 to 1.42) (N = 867) 0.1 1 10 Relative Risk, 95% CI Osteoporotic and Non-Osteoporotic Populations * Montessori Trial (N=80) not included in figure due to zero Non-Vertebral Fractures occuring. ** Treatment and Control Groups Received phosphate

  18. Relative Risk with 95% CI for Vertebral Fractures for Doses of 5mg or Greater of Alendronate Favours Alendronate Favours Control Prevention Trials ' McClung 0.34 (0.04 to 3.25) (n = 355) ' (n = 1355) Pooled Prevention Estimate 0.45(0.06 to 3.15) Treatment Trials ' (n = 184) Bone 0.68 ( 0.21 to 2.18) ' (n = 157) Chesnut 0.25 (0.03 to 2.34) ' Liberman (USA) 0.52 ( 0.24 to 1.15) (n = 478) ' (n = 516) Liberman (Int) 0.52 ( 0.20 to 1.34) ' Black 0.53 (0.41 to 0.69) (n = 2027) ' Cummings 0.51 ( 0.31 to 0.84) (n = 4432 ) ' Pooled Treatment Estimate 0.53 (0.43 to 0.65) (n = 8005 ) ' (n = 9360) Pooled Estimate 0.52 (0.43 to 0.65) 0.01 0.1 1 10 Adami and Hoskings trials not included in figure due to low vertebral fracture incidence.

  19. Risk Ratios and Summary Estimates with 95% CI for Non-Vertebral Fractures for Dose of 10mg or Greater of Alendronate Favours Alendronate Favours Control Prevention Trials ' (n =267) McClung 0.79 (0.28 to 2.24) Treatment Trials ' (n = 211) Adami 0.36 (0.07 to 1.80) ' (n = 125) Chesnut 0.43 (0.11 to 1.65) ' (n = 380) Liberman (USA) 0.55 (0.31 to 0.97) ' (n =412) Liberman (Int) 0.65 (0.32 to 1.34) ' (n = 1908) Pols 0.47 (0.26 to 0.83) ' (n =419) Rosen 0.35 (0.15 to 0.77) ' (n = 3455) Pooled Treatment Estimate 0.49 (0.36 to 0.67) (n = 3722) ' Pooled Estimate 0.51 (0.38 to 0.69) 0.01 0.1 1 10

  20. Relative Risk with 95% CI for Non-Vertebral Fractures after Treatment with Risedronate (Final Year, All Doses) Favours Risedronate Favours Control Prevention Trials ' Mortensen (1998) 0.49 (0.12 to 2.03) (N = 111) TreatmentTrials ' Harris (1999) 0.64 (0.42 to 0.98) (N = 1627 ) ' Clemensen (1997) 0.70 (0.45 to 1.09) (N =132) ' (N = 648) McClung (Abstract) 0.71 (0.36 to 1.40) ' Reginster (2000) 0.71 (0.47 to 1.06) (N =812) ' (N =3219 ) Pooled Treatment Estimate 0.69 (0.55 to 0.86) ' Pooled Estimate 0.68 (0.54 to 0.85) (N =3330 ) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

  21. Relative Risk with 95% CI for Vertebral Fractures after Treatment with Risedronate (Final Year, All Doses) Favours Risedronate Favours Control Prevention Trials ' (N = 111) Mortensen (1998) 2.44 (0.12 to 49.43) Treatment Trials ' (N = 1278) Harris 1- year (1999) 0.59 (0.36 to 0.97) ' Harris - 3 year (1999) 0.64 (0.47 to 0.87) (N =1374) ' (N = 132) Clemensen (1997) 1.52 (0.56 to 4.15) ' (N = 541) Fogelman (Abstract) 0.72 (0.45 to1.15) ' Reginster 1 - year (2000) 0.55 (0.34 to 0.87) (N = 663) ' Reginster 3 - year (2000) 0.60 (0.44 to 0.81) (N = 690) ' Pooled Treatment Estimate 0.63 (0.54 to 0.75) (N = 4687) ' Pooled Estimate 0.64 (0.54 to 0.85) (N =4789) 0.1 1 10

  22. Early treatment may be appropriate • Baseline risk of fracture from alendronate RCTs over 2 year period • non-osteoporotic NNTs • vertebral 0.12% 1,790 • non-vertebral 2.54% 80 • osteoporotic • vertebral 2.88% 72 • non-vertebral 6.85% 24

  23. Benefits • Drugs that reduce vertebral fractures • vitamin D, HRT, raloxifene, risedronate, alendronate • Drugs that reduce non-vertebral fractures • risedronate (1/3 RRR), alendronate (1/2 RRR)

  24. Values and Preferences • high value: reducing fractures, no uncertainty • choose alendronate • high value: reducing fractures, no inconvenience • alendronate upright 30 minutes before meal • choose residronate • high value on “natural” treatment, low cost • calcium and vitamin D • high value on fracture reduction – early treatment • high value living without medication – late treatment

  25. Grading Recommendations • methodologic strength • High (RCT), intermediate (quasi-RCTs), low (observational), insufficient (other) • implementation, consistency, directness • decision • do it, don’t do, toss-up • strength of decision • strong (across range of values, most would choose • weak (different choices across range of values)

More Related