1 / 27

Session 3: Assessing a Document on Treatment

October 27, 2008. Session 3: Assessing a Document on Treatment. Peter Tarczy-Hornoch MD Head and Professor, Division of BHI Professor, Division of Neonatology Adjunct Professor, Computer Science and Engineering faculty.washington.edu/pth. Assessing a Document on Treatment.

zan
Download Presentation

Session 3: Assessing a Document on Treatment

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. October 27, 2008 Session 3: Assessing a Document on Treatment Peter Tarczy-Hornoch MD Head and Professor, Division of BHI Professor, Division of Neonatology Adjunct Professor, Computer Science and Engineering faculty.washington.edu/pth

  2. Assessing a Document on Treatment • Context for Assessing a Treatment Document • Treatment Statistics • Statistics 102 • Applying to a Scenario

  3. Diagnostic vs. Therapeutic Studies Diagnostic Testing (What is it?) (Session 4) Patient Data & Information Therapy/Treatment (What do I do for it?) (Session 3) Case specific decision making General Information & Knowledge

  4. Steps to Finding & Assessing Information • Translate your clinical situation into a formal framework for a searchable question (Session 1) • Choose source(s) to search (Session 2) • Search your source(s) (Session 2) • Assess the resulting articles (documents) • Therapy documents (today) • Diagnosis documents (Session 4) • Systematic reviews/comparing documents (Session 5) • Decide if you have enough information to make a decision, repeat 1-4 as needed (ICM, clinical rotations, internship, residency) (Session 6)

  5. from Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 2000, JP Geyman, RA Deyo, SD Ramsey

  6. Assessing a Document

  7. Assessing a Document on Treatment • Context for Assessing a Treatment Document • Treatment Statistics • Statistics 102 • Applying to a Scenario

  8. Relative Risk, Relative Risk Reduction Risk = outcome event rate = number having event number receiving the intervention Relative Risk = risk in intervention group (RR) risk in control group Note: RR can also be treatment1 vs treatment2 Relative Risk Reduction(RRR) = 1 – RR Note: each of these statistics can have 95% Confidence Interval (CI) (see Statistics 102). For RR if CI includes 1 then no statistical difference between groups

  9. Absolute Risk Reduction &Number Needed to Treat/Harm Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) = difference in risk (control – intervention) or = difference in risk (treatment1 - treatment2)Note: 10%=>0.10 Number Needed to Treat (NNT) = 1/ARR “the number of patients who need to be treated to prevent one outcome event from occurring in specified time” Number Needed to Harm (NNH) Same but instead of benefit you get harm (e.g. a side effect) Note: each of these statistics can have 95% Confidence Interval (CI) (see Statistics 102). For ARR if CI includes (crosses) zero then no statistical difference between groups

  10. Example (I) • An oncology trial testing a new treatment with 4-year follow-up for mortality (risk of death, (-) outcome) • experimental treatment: 30% (risk in intervention) • control group: 50% (risk in control) • What are the RR, RRR, ARR, NNT?

  11. Example (II) RR = risk of death in intervention/risk of death in control groups = 30%/50% = 0.6 or 60% RRR = 1 - RR = 1-0.6 = 0.4 or 40% ARR = risk of death in control – experimental groups = .50 -.30 = 0.2 or 20% NNT =1/ARR = 1 ÷ 0.2 = 5 = 5 patients treated with the experimental therapy to prevent one death at 4 years

  12. Relative vs. Absolute Increases • Relative Increase: • On July 3, 2002 Worldcom stock rose 120% => Great! • Absolute Increase • On July 3, 2002 Worldcom stock rose from $0.10 to $0.22 => Not so great!

  13. Relative RR vs. Absolute RR • Risk 10/100 5/100 RRR = 50% ARR = 5% NNT = 20 • Risk 1/100 0.5/100 RRR = 50% ARR = 0.5% NNT = 200 • Risk 0.1/100 0.05/100 RRR = 50% ARR = 0.05% NNT = 2000 Control Treatment

  14. Assessing a Document on Treatment • Context for Assessing a Treatment Document • Treatment Statistics • Statistics 102 • Applying to a Scenario

  15. Study Design 101 • Case Series: 1 series of patients with outcome of interest, no control group, +/- protocol, weakest design (“anecdote”) • E.g. last 10 toddlers with asthma and their histories • Cohort Trial: 2 groups (cohorts), protocol is “exposure of interest” vs. not, follow FORWARD for outcome of interest, can’t control for UNKNOWN factors • E.g. 10 infants born to mothers who smoked vs. 10 infants born to mothers who did not and seeing (looking FORWARD) whether or not they develop asthma • Case Control Trial: 2 groups, protocol is outcome of interest (“cases”) vs. those without (“controls”), look BACK for “exposure of interest”, can only match cases/controls for KNOWN factors (e.g. age/gender) • E.g. 10 toddlers with asthma and 10 similar toddlers without asthma looking BACK to see if their mothers smoked • Randomized Controlled Trial • Protocol is treatment (intervention) randomly assigned, avoids bias by ensuring KNOWN and UNKNOWN factors (confounders) that determine outcome are evenly distributed between treatment and control groups (or treatment 1 vs treatment 2), often called “gold standard” study design. Double blinding is when neither investigator nor study subjects know who got what intervention. • E.g. 100 toddlers with asthma and randomly giving 50 one treatment and 50 another treatment and seeing if one group does better/worse • Systematic Review/Meta-analysis • Summary of medical literature using explicit protocol to search the literature and critically appraise and combine studies • E.g. 20 studies looking at asthma treatments in toddlers

  16. Levels of evidence EBM, 2005, Straus et al

  17. Statistics 102: Confidence Intervals (I) • 95% Confidence Interval (CI): there is a 95% probability the “true” effect of treatment (in the whole population, not the study population) lies within the stated range • Can be calculated for most treatment statistics (RR, NNT, ARR, etc.) • “Treatment 1 relative risk of death was 50% that of treatment 2 (RR 95% CI 40%-60%)” • 95% chance the “true” (population) RR is in the 40-60% range • Study 1: 95% CI: 40-60% vs. Study 2: 95% CI: 45-55% • Study 2 is more precise (narrower 95% CI) • Could be due more patients studied in Study 2 or less variability between patients in Study 2 • 95% CI can also tell you about significance (next slide) See: http://www.acponline.org/journals/ecp/sepoct01/primerci.pdf

  18. Statistics 102: Confidence Intervals (II) • Likely no statistically significant difference • Likely statistically significant difference Red line is “no difference” Red line is “no difference”

  19. Statistics 102: Confidence Intervals (III) • Example: Average weight of students in this classroom • “Truth”: entire population, weigh everybody and calculate average (the vertical line) • “Sample”: 10 randomly chosen students, calculate average and 95% CI for average • Figure: 100 samplings with their 95% CI, note 5 marked with xx do NOT include “truth” • The narrower the CI is, the more certain we can be that the experimental value is close to the “true value”. • Larger samples tend to decrease CI (increase precision) See: http://www.acponline.org/journals/ecp/sepoct01/primerci.pdf

  20. Assessing a Document on Treatment • Context for Assessing a Treatment Document • Treatment Statistics • Statistics 102 • Applying to a Scenario

  21. Applying Statistics to a Scenario • Previously health 43 year old male is diagnosed with a bacterial pneumonia. Prior episode of sinusitis treated with “Z-pack” (Azithromycin). Recommendation to treat with levofloxacin. • Question: how do these treatments compare in terms of clinical cure rates and cost? • Search on terms “community acquired pneumonia treatment levaquin outpatient” finds following: • “Novel, single-dose microsphere formulation of azithromycin versus 7-day levofloxacin therapy for treatment of mild to moderate community-acquired Pneumonia in adults.” Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005 October; 49(10): 4035–4041.

  22. Assessing the Document in Scenario

  23. Abstract of Document (adapted) This randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study was designed to demonstrate that a single 2.0-g oral dose of a novel microsphere formulation of azithromycin was at least as effective as 7 days of levofloxacin, 500 mg/day, in the treatment of adult patients community acquired pneumonia. Clinical cure rates were 89.7% (156 of 174) for azithromycin microspheres and 93.7% (177 of 189) for levofloxacin (treatment difference, −4.0%; 95% confidence interval, −9.7%, 1.7%). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated; the incidence of treatment-related adverse events was 19.9% and 12.3% for azithromycin and levofloxacin, respectively. A single 2.0-g dose of azithromycin microspheres was at least as effective as a 7-day course of levofloxacin in the treatment of mild to moderate community-acquired pneumonia in adult outpatients.

  24. Calculating Statistics in Scenario Note: a) control for patient in scenario is azithromycin and intervention is levofloxacin (opposite of paper), b) “risk” in this situation is in fact rate of cure ((+) outcome) Relative Risk = risk in intervention group = 93.7/89.7=1.04 (RR) risk in control group Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) = diff in risk (control – intervention)=0.897-0.937=-0.04 Number Needed to Treat (NNT) = 1/ARR = 1/0.04=25 In this scenario the number of patients who need to be treated in order to achieve apparent levofloxacin benefit

  25. Using 95% CI in Scenario This randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study was designed to demonstrate that a single 2.0-g oral dose of a novel microsphere formulation of azithromycin was at least as effective as 7 days of levofloxacin, 500 mg/day, in the treatment of adult patients community acquired pneumonia. Clinical cure rates were 89.7% (156 of 174) for azithromycin microspheres and 93.7% (177 of 189) for levofloxacin (treatment difference, −4.0%; 95% confidence interval, −9.7%, 1.7%). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated; the incidence of treatment-related adverse events was 19.9% and 12.3% for azithromycin and levofloxacin, respectively. A single 2.0-g dose of azithromycin microspheres was at least as effective as a 7-day course of levofloxacin in the treatment of mild to moderate community-acquired pneumonia in adult outpatients. => Note cost of azithromycin generic at Bartell’s is $5 and cost of levofloxacin is $ 106

  26. Small Group Wednesday Oct 29th • Small group leads to give examples of recent clinical situations where they had to evaluate one or more documents related to treating a particular treatment • Group to review and discuss assignment with multiple short examples related to treatments, focusing on: • Confidence intervals • RRR • ARR • NNT • AND/OR: group to search for treatment article(s) on a topic of interest and assess results

  27. QUESTIONS? • Context for Assessing a Treatment Document • Statistics 102 • Treatment Statistics • Small Group Portion • If any midcourse feedback e-mail pth@u.

More Related