{"id":15493,"date":"2012-01-26T09:27:18","date_gmt":"2012-01-26T14:27:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/?post_type=voices&p=15493"},"modified":"2012-01-26T09:27:18","modified_gmt":"2012-01-26T14:27:18","slug":"sizing-up-clinical-trials-%e2%80%94-quickly-and-intuitively","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/2012\/01\/26\/sizing-up-clinical-trials-%e2%80%94-quickly-and-intuitively\/","title":{"rendered":"Sizing Up Clinical Trials \u2014 Quickly and Intuitively"},"content":{"rendered":"

A pharmaceutical sales rep comes to your office bringing lunch. He shows you a graphic stating that Multaq (dronedarone)<\/a> reduced the primary endpoint in the ATHENA trial by 24%. The fine print shows an impressive P<\/em> value: <0.0001. You come away satisfied that this drug looks good. You may not realize it, but you also feel a sense of obligation to the rep for the lunch.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, you go to the New England Journal<\/em>\u00a0of Medicine<\/em> paper<\/a> to look into this for yourself.\u00a0 There you find that the primary endpoint \u2014 first hospitalization due to a cardiovascular event, or death \u2014 occurred in 31.9% of the treatment group and 39.4% of the placebo group. That represents a 19% relative reduction (apparently, the 24% figure was initially reported at a national meeting but is not reflected in the published data). The difference between the treatment groups was mainly due to the reduction in the rate of hospitalizations. A 7.5% absolute risk reduction for the combined endpoint is starting to look less impressive.<\/p>\n

The inverse of this absolute risk reduction, the number needed to treat (NNT), is 13. The drug was discontinued because of adverse events in 12.7% of the treatment group and 8.1% of the placebo group, yielding a number needed to harm (at least enough to discontinue the drug) of 22. The average follow-up was 21 months, and the drug costs $276 per month.<\/p>\n

You think to yourself, \u201cI would need to treat 13 patients over an average of 21 months, at a total cost of more than $80,000 to prevent one hospitalization due to a cardiovascular event or one death. If I treat an additional 9 patients, I would cause enough harm to cause one patient to discontinue the drug.\u201d Hmmm, not so good after all.<\/p>\n

Psychologists, such as Gerd Gigerenzer and colleagues<\/a>, tell us that we can be fooled by the relative risk reduction, which exaggerates the observed difference between treatment groups. Our example bears that out. The simple statement using the NNT is much more intuitive.<\/p>\n

In his recent book Thinking, Fast and Slow<\/em><\/a>, Daniel Kahneman summarizes years of research on how we use intuition to make decisions. According to Kahneman and others, we have two modes of thinking: a fast, intuitive mode, called System 1 thinking, and a slower, analytical mode called System 2 thinking.<\/p>\n

System 1 \u2014 intuitive and almost automatic \u2014 looks for quick, easy answers and is a sucker for a story. System 2 \u2014 deliberate and analytical \u2014 is consciously effortful and plodding. System 1 sees the forest; System 2 sees the trees. System 1, intuitive as it is, misses details. But slow System 2 can\u2019t handle uncertainty. We need System 1 to quickly size up situations and to integrate complex but incomplete data. Despite its proneness to specific errors, System 1\u2019s gut reaction is often right on.<\/p>\n

System 1 can be set up to fail or succeed. Kahneman gives this example: If you tell a person that a bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total and the bat costs $1.00 more than the ball, and then ask how much the ball costs, System 1 wants to quickly answer, \u201c10 cents.\u201d But with a little extra time and thought, System 2 comes up with the correct answer of 5 cents. The original question is a setup for a System 1 failure. But if you frame the question differently \u2014 by stating that the bat and ball cost $1.10 and the bat costs $1.05 \u2014 System 1 won\u2019t get fooled.<\/p>\n

By using NNTs, we can set up System 1 to succeed, as we try to integrate the results of complex clinical trials into our everyday practice. Kaul and Diamond<\/a> suggest that a good NNT is less than 50, and the number needed to harm (NNH) should be much greater than the NNT. Of course, you should also consider the cost and clinical impact of the treatment in question.<\/p>\n

The NNT for post-MI aspirin is only 14. For heparin to treat unstable angina, it\u2019s 40. The NNT for clopidogrel is 48, for prasugrel 46, for warfarin 48, for glycoprotein IIb\/IIIa antagonists 77, and for TAVR 5 (with an NNH of 7 for vascular complications and 26 for stroke). The NNT and NNH summarize the evidence in a format that our System 1 thinking can easily handle.<\/p>\n

So the next time a sales rep shows you a new study, turn down the lunch and ask to see the absolute risk reduction. Divide that number into 100 to calculate the NNT. Then turn that number into a simple declarative sentence that allows your intuition to better appreciate the true value of the new drug or intervention.<\/p>\n

How often do you focus on the NNT when you assess clinical trials?<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A pharmaceutical sales rep comes to your office bringing lunch. He shows you a graphic stating that Multaq (dronedarone) reduced the primary endpoint in the ATHENA trial by 24%. The fine print shows an impressive P value: <0.0001. You come away satisfied that this drug looks good. You may not realize it, but you also […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":379,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1119,949,410,1118,1117],"class_list":["post-15493","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-critical-analysis-of-research","tag-decision-making","tag-dronedarone","tag-number-needed-to-harm","tag-number-needed-to-treat"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15493","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/379"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15493"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15493\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}