Dataset Information

Sublingual Dexmedetomidine for Agitation Associated with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder: A Post Hoc Analysis of Number Needed to Treat, Number Needed to Harm, and Likelihood to be Helped or Harmed.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The objective was to use the evidence-based medicine metrics of number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed to appraise the clinical efficacy and tolerability of sublingual dexmedetomidine in adults with agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

Methods

Sublingual dexmedetomidine data for this post hoc analysis were obtained from two similarly designed, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of adults with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Response to treatment was defined as a ≥ 40% reduction from baseline in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PEC). Tolerability was assessed by evaluating rates of adverse events.

Results

The number needed to treat (95% confidence interval) estimate versus placebo for PEC response at 2 h post-dose was 3 (2, 3) for the sublingual dexmedetomidine 180-µg group (n = 125) and 3 (3, 4) for the 120-µg group (n = 129) in the study of patients with schizophrenia and 3 (2, 3) for the sublingual dexmedetomidine 180-µg group (n = 126) and 4 (3, 6) for the 120-µg group (n = 126) in the study of patients with bipolar disorder. Number needed to harm values versus placebo were greater than 10 for all adverse events except somnolence, where the number needed to harm (95% confidence interval) was 7 (5, 10) for all doses pooled from both studies. In all instances, likelihood to be helped or harmed values were greater than 1 for efficacy versus applicable tolerability outcomes.

Conclusions

The number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed of sublingual dexmedetomidine support a favorable benefit-risk profile in adults with acute agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04268303 , NCT04268303.

Clinicaltrials

gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04276883 , NCT04276883.

SUBMITTER: Citrome L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9464744 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sublingual Dexmedetomidine for Agitation Associated with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder: A Post Hoc Analysis of Number Needed to Treat, Number Needed to Harm, and Likelihood to be Helped or Harmed.

Citrome Leslie L Risinger Robert R Rajachandran Lavanya L Robison Heather H

Advances in therapy 20220824 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>The objective was to use the evidence-based medicine metrics of number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed to appraise the clinical efficacy and tolerability of sublingual dexmedetomidine in adults with agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.<h4>Methods</h4>Sublingual dexmedetomidine data for this post hoc analysis were obtained from two similarly designed, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of ...[more]

PMID: 36002761

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAcute agitation is common in patients with bipolar disorder and requires urgent management to relieve distress and to prevent escalation to aggressive behavior.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of orally absorbed, sublingual dexmedetomidine, a selective α2A-adrenergic receptor agonist on symptoms of acute agitation in patients with bipolar disorder.Design, setting, and participantsPhase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 15 sites in the US with enrollment between February 24, 2020, and April 27, 2020, and final follow-up on May 21, 2020. A total of 380 adults with bipolar I or II disorder were randomized and 362 completed the study.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to 3 groups: sublingual dexmedetomidine 180 μg (n = 127), sublingual dexmedetomidine 120 μg (n = 127), or placebo (n = 126).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary efficacy end point was the mean change from baseline at 2 hours for the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PEC) total score. The range of possible total scores is 5 (absence of agitation) to 35 (extremely severe). The secondary end point was the earliest time of a statistically significant change in PEC total score from baseline for the drug vs placebo. On the primary efficacy end point, to account for multiplicity associated with comparing 2 sublingual dexmedetomidine doses with placebo, the 2-sided significance level for each dose vs placebo was set at .025.ResultsOf 380 patients randomized (mean age, 45.6 years; 54.8% women; and 56.1% Black individuals), 378 (99.5%) self-administered the study medication and completed the study. Baseline agitation was mild to moderate, with an overall mean PEC total score of 18.0. Two hours after taking the medication, the mean changes from baseline in PEC total score were -10.4 for sublingual dexmedetomidine 180 μg, -9.0 for sublingual dexmedetomidine 120 μg, and -4.9 for placebo. Least-square mean differences from placebo in the sublingual dexmedetomidine groups at 2 hours were -5.4 (97.5% CI, -6.6 to -4.2) for 180 μg and -4.1 (97.5% CI, -5.3 to -2.9) for 120 μg (both doses P < .001 vs placebo). Treatment effects began 20 minutes after taking the medication among patients in the sublingual dexmedetomidine groups (least-square mean difference for 180 μg, -1.1 [97.5% CI, -2.0 to -0.2]; P = .007; for 120 μg, -1.0 [97.5% CI, -1.9 to -0.1]; P = .009). Adverse events occurred in 35.7% of patients taking 180 μg of dexmedetomidine, 34.9% taking 120 μg, and 17.5% taking placebo. The most common adverse events (≥5%) in the respective 180 μg, 120 μg, and placebo groups were somnolence (21.4% and 20.6% vs 4.8%); dry mouth (4.8% and 7.1% vs 0.8%); hypotension (6.3% and 4.8% vs 0%); and dizziness (5.6% and 5.6% vs 0.8%).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with mild to moderate agitation associated with bipolar disorder, treatment with a sublingual film formulation of dexmedetomidine 120 μg or 180 μg, compared with placebo, resulted in significantly greater reduction in the agitation score at 2 hours. Further research is needed to understand the spectrum of patients for whom this treatment would be effective and feasible and to better understand the clinical importance of the observed effect size.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04276883.

Project description:ObjectiveSchizophrenia clinical trials commonly measure observed changes in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score. However, it is more intuitive to think of response vs nonresponse, a binary outcome. Assessing binary outcomes enables calculation of number needed to treat (NNT) for therapeutic outcomes, number needed to harm (NNH) for adverse outcomes, and likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH) to demonstrate benefit/risk tradeoffs. Here, NNT, NNH, and LHH were used to evaluate the clinical usefulness of aripiprazole lauroxil in patients with an acute schizophrenia exacerbation.MethodsCategorical efficacy and tolerability data were taken from the pivotal Phase 3 trial evaluating aripiprazole lauroxil for treatment of an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. NNT and NNH values, with 95% CIs, were calculated in this post hoc analysis.ResultsUsing the intent-to-treat population for the pooled doses of aripiprazole lauroxil (441 mg [n=196] and 882 mg [n=204] q4w), responder rates (≥30% improvement from baseline PANSS total score) were 35.3% for aripiprazole lauroxil arms vs 18.4% for placebo (n=196), yielding a NNT of 6 (95% CI: 5-11). Discontinuation rates due to adverse events (AEs) were higher among patients randomized to placebo than to either aripiprazole lauroxil dose. Akathisia was the only AE with an incidence ≥5% in each aripiprazole lauroxil group and at least twice that of placebo (11.6%, 11.5%, and 4.3% of the patients receiving aripiprazole lauroxil 441 mg, 882 mg, and placebo, respectively), producing a NNH of 14 (95% CI: 9-33) for pooled aripiprazole lauroxil doses vs placebo. Calculating LHH for therapeutic response vs akathisia, aripiprazole lauroxil was 2.3 times more likely to result in a therapeutic response than an incident of akathisia.ConclusionUsing metrics of NNT, NNH, and LHH, aripiprazole lauroxil was an efficacious and well-tolerated intervention in a pivotal study in patients with an acute schizophrenia exacerbation.

Project description:IntroductionSubcutaneous galcanezumab was an effective, well-tolerated preventive treatment for adults with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) in 4 phase 3 randomized controlled trials: EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, REGAIN, and CONQUER. Number needed to treat (NNT) and to harm (NNH) are metrics of effect size used to evaluate benefit-risk profiles. This study evaluated NNT, NNH, and benefit-risk profiles (measured as likelihood to be helped or harmed, LHH) of galcanezumab 120 mg versus placebo in patients with EM or CM.MethodsPrimary efficacy outcomes were responses defined as ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 75% reductions from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days in patients with EM (EVOLVE-1; EVOLVE-2; CONQUER) and CM (REGAIN; CONQUER); corresponding NNTs to achieve respective responses; and corresponding NNHs for discontinuations due to adverse events (DCAEs) among the safety population. Secondary efficacy outcomes were responses for patients with ≥ 2 failed prior preventive treatments due to lack of efficacy and/or for tolerability reasons. All LHHs were based on ≥ 50% response and DCAEs.ResultsDuring double-blind treatment periods with galcanezumab 120 mg, NNT to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses ranged from 4 to 10 and NNT to achieve ≥ 75% responses ranged from 5 to 23 in individual trials. NNH ranged from 93 to 1000, while LHH ranged from 18.6 to 104.6. NNTs were generally more robust among patients with EM than with CM; however, in patients with failure of ≥ 2 prior preventive treatments, NNTs to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses were similar between patients with CM and EM. NNHs were imputed as 1000 for both migraine types. Resulting LHHs were 178.8 (EM) and 127 (CM).ConclusionAcross 4 trials, galcanezumab 120 mg demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile versus placebo, based on low NNTs to achieve response and high NNHs associated with DCAEs. LHH values consistently far exceeded 1.Trial registration numbersEVOLVE-1: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614183; EVOLVE-2: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614196; REGAIN: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614261; CONQUER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03559257.

Project description:BackgroundIn hormone-receptor positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) no randomized comparisons are available between CDK4/6 inhibitors. We undertook this systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the reliability of the likelihood of being helped or harmed (LHH).MethodsPubMed, CENTRAL, Embase and oncological meetings websites were searched to September 13th, 2022. We included phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib in addition to endocrine therapy (ET) compared to placebo in hormone-receptor positive/HER2-negative advanced or mBC. Outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events (AEs), dose reductions and discontinuations. Hazard ratios (HRs) and risk differences were computed with a random effect model to estimate the number needed to treat/harm (NNT/NNH). LHH was computed as (1/NNT)/(1/NNH). PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022362417.Findings2204 records were screened and seven RCTs (4415 patients) were included. A significant PFS benefit was observed in patients treated with a CDK4/6 inhibitor compared to placebo (HR 0.549; 0.508-0.594, I 2 = 0). Palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib had similar NNTs (4.4, 5.0 and 4.4). Palbociclib and ribociclib showed lower LHHs for grade 3-4 neutropenia (0.33 and 0.35) and febrile neutropenia ([FN], 14.27 and 15.52), while abemaciclib the lowest LHH for any grade diarrhea (0.42). Abemaciclib had a lower LHH for grade 3-4 fatigue (9.92) and the highest LHH for all grade 3-4 AEs (0.62), while ribociclib the lowest LHH (1.75) for grade 3-4 hepatotoxicity. Palbociclib had the highest LHH for dose reductions and discontinuations (0.65 and 6.17). Considering OS, an overall benefit was observed (HR 0.788, 0.727-0.856, I 2 = 0%); ribociclib and abemaciclib had lower NNTs (9.7 and 10.0). Ribociclib showed the highest LHH for diarrhea (1.29), fatigue (7.37), dose reductions (0.28) and discontinuations (2.40), while abemaciclib the highest LHHs for neutropenia (0.40), FN (12.53) and hepatotoxicity (2.23).InterpretationPalbociclib and ribociclib showed lower LHHs for haematological toxicities and abemaciclib for diarrhea. Palbociclib confirmed to be a manageable drug. The LHH appears to be a reliable synthesis tool for balancing risks and benefits of experimental drugs when head-to-head comparisons are missing.FundingNone.

Dataset Information

Sublingual Dexmedetomidine for Agitation Associated with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder: A Post Hoc Analysis of Number Needed to Treat, Number Needed to Harm, and Likelihood to be Helped or Harmed.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials

Publications

Sublingual Dexmedetomidine for Agitation Associated with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorder: A Post Hoc Analysis of Number Needed to Treat, Number Needed to Harm, and Likelihood to be Helped or Harmed.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets