# Evidence Based Medicine In Pharmacy Practice

Evidence Based Medicine In Pharmacy Practice Jarrod King, Pharm. D. PGY1 UAMS Managed Care Resident Ref: Bastian, Hilda. Statistical Significance and Its Part in Science Downfalls. Bias, Science Communication. (2013) http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2013/11/11/statistical-significance-and-its-part-in-science-downfalls/ Pharmacist Objectives: 1. Understand the medical literature hierarchy. 2. Describe a p-value and a 95% confidence interval and tell how they are similar and how they are different. 3. Calculate a number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) from a clinical trial and describe what the result means. 4. Differentiate between statistical and clinical significance and provide an example. 5. Give an example of disease-oriented evidence that DID and DID NOT translate to a meaningful clinical outcome in a trial. Technician Objectives:

1. Explain how to calculate a number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) from a clinical trial and discuss what the result means. 2. Compare and contrast statistical and clinical significance and provide an example. 3. Discuss examples of disease-oriented evidence that DID and DID NOT translate to a meaningful clinical outcome in a trial. The Medical Hierarchy of Evidence Meta-analyses Systematic Reviews Randomized, controlled trials Non-randomized controlled Trials Cohort studies Case Control Study Case series

Case Reports Experimental vs Observational Studies . Systematic Review and Meta Analysis Figure: Olopatadine vs ketotifen. Itching at 14 days. Castillo, Mayret, et al. "Topical antihistamines and mast cell stabilisers for treating seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis." The Cochrane Library(2015). Question 1: Which of the following statements are false? A. Meta analyses provide more statistical power than individual trials alone. B. Randomized controlled trials always hold more statistical power over cohort

and case-controlled studies. C. Cohort studies compare outcomes between groups that share a common characteristic (drug exposure) to those without the characteristic by following them over time. D. Case Control studies look back retrospectively at people with or without an outcome (disease) to compare exposure to a risk factor. Reporting the Results There are a number of ways to report clinical trial data: 1. P - value 2. Confidence interval (CI) 3. Risk ratio (RR) 4. Hazard ratio (HR) 5. Odds ratio (OR) 6. Absolute risk reduction (ARR) 7. Number needed to treat (NNT)

8. Number needed to harm (NNH) Ref: Bastian, Hilda. Statistically Funny Commenting on the science of unbiased health research with cartoons. (2015) http://statistically-funny.blogspot.com/2015/07/arr-or-nnt-whats-your-numberneeded-to.html P - value Probability that the results found in a trial were by chance. Tiotropium + budesonide/ formoterol (n=287) Tiotropium Monotherapy (n=286)

Difference P value 7.5% 8.6 <0.0001 Typically 0.05. Mean Post dose change in 16.4% Provides no information about size of FEV1 at 60 min (%)

the observed effect or clinical Also stated, there is < 5% probability that the result occurred by chance. (6.2, 11.1) significance. P = 0.01 vs p = 0.00001. Lee, Sang Do, et al. "Efficacy and tolerability of budesonide/formoterol added to tiotropium compared with tiotropium alone in patients with severe or very severe COPD: a randomized, multicentre study in East Asia." Respirology21.1 (2016): 119-127. Confidence Interval Adjusted Rate Range of values that have a given probability of encompassing the true

value. CI provide statistical significance, an estimation of effect size, and variability. Difference data (mean diff, % diff) = statistically significant if the CI DOES NOT COPD cross 0 (0.001 3.153). exacerba Ratio data (HR, RR, OR) = statistically significant if the CI DOES NOT cross 1 (0.34 0.85). tion rate Budesonide + formoterol inhaler

Fluticasone + salmeterol inhaler 0.88 0.86 Rate Ratio 95% CI, (p value) 1.02 0.96

1.09, (0.5637) Ref: Kern, David M., et al. "Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination and fluticasone/salmeterol combination among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients new to controller treatment: a US administrative claims database study." Respiratory research 16.1 (2015): 52. Confidence Intervals Figure: Olopatadine vs ketotifen. Itching at 14 days. Risk Ratio or Relative Risk (RR) Probability of an unfavorable event occurring BY THE END OF A CLINICAL TRIAL in the tx grp vs. control grp. Beta Blocker

(n = 1,000) Placebo (n=1,000) Relative Risk # w/ HF exacerbation (%) 160 (16%) 200 (20%)

0.8 # of Deaths (%) 15 (1.5%) 37 (3.7%) 0.41 Major shortcoming: overstatement of treatment value (look at absolute difference too). Calculations: Risk = # of subjects w/ unfavorable event # of subjects in that arm

Relative Risk = risk in tx arm risk in control arm Interpretation: RR = 1 = no difference in risk RR < 1 fewer events occurring in tx grp. RR > 1 more events occurring in tx grp. Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) Quantifies how much the risk is reduced in the tx group vs. control group. 1-RR RR = 0.93 means tx subjects were 93% or 0.93 times AS LIKELY to experience an event compared to control RR = 0.93 RRR = 1-0.93 = 0.07 Means tx subjects were 7% LESS likely to experience an event compared to

control. Again, neither RR or RRR express importance or magnitude of the treatment effect. Can overexpress tx results. Hazard Ratio (HR) Calculated and interpreted (numerically) the same as RR Hazard rate in tx grp Hazard rate in control grp Used for survival or time-to-event analysis. Often expressed with Kaplan-Meier curves. RR = relative likelihood of an event occurring at the end of the trial. HR = relative likelihood of an event occurring at any given time during a clinical trial. Weighted RR over the entire study.

Odds Ratio (OR) Calculations: OR = A * D B *C Odds of exacerbation w/ BB Odds of exacerbation w/ placebo Probability of the event occurring compared to probability it will not. For Case Control studies, typically only result calculated. RR is the probability of someone w/o event developing the event. Beta Blocker (n = 1,000)

# w/ HF exacerbation 160 (16%) 200 (20%) A # w/o HF exacerbation Placebo (n=1,000) C 840 (84%) 800 (80%) B

D Relative Risk Odds Ratio 0.8 0.76 Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) Difference in event rate between control and treatment groups. (% events in control) (% events in treatment) For every 100 patients treated, 4 fewer will experience HF progression. Beta Blocker (n =1,000)

Placebo (n=1,000) Relative Risk Odds Ratio Absolute Risk Reduction # w/ HF 160 (16%) exacerbation (%)

200 (20%) 0.8 (80%) 0.76 (76%) 4% COMPARISON OF RR VS. ARR Occurrence of neuropathy Usual insulin Intensive Insulin RR

ARR Trial 1 0.00096% 0.00028% 71% 0.00068% Trial 2 9.6% 2.8%

71% 6.8% Trial 3 96% 28% 71% 68% NNT and NNH NNT or NNH = 1 / ARR (expressed as decimal) NNT is always rounded up 1 / 0.04 = 25

NNH is always rounded down. 1 / 0.13 = 7.7 = 7 Meaning, 25 people have to be treated with a beta blocker for 2 years to prevent 1 person from having a heart failure exacerbation. Tx duration x 2 years Beta Blocker (n = 1,000) Placebo (n=1,000) Relative Risk Odds Ratio Absolute

Risk Reduction # w/ HF exacerbation (%) 160 (16%) 200 (20%) 0.8 (80%) 0.76 (76%) 4% NNT = 25

# w/ bradycardia episode 180 (18%) 50 (5%) 13% NNH = 7 Question 2: Which answer combinations are correct? 1. The Risk Ratio can overexpress the treatment effect. 2. Confidence Intervals provide statistical significance, estimation of effect size, and variance of the estimate. 3. A p value can give a direct determination of treatment effect size. 4. A NNT = 5 means for every patient treated with study medication, there is a reduction of 5

events. A. B. C. D. E. 1 and 2 1,2 and 4 1,2,3 and 4 1 and 4 2 and 3 Statistical vs. Clinical Benefit and the Analysis of Surrogate Endpoints Ref: Bastian, Hilda. Statistical Significance and Its Part in Science Downfalls. Bias, Science Communication. (2013) http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2013/11/11/statistical-significance-and-its-part-in-sciencedownfalls/

Surrogate vs. Clinical Endpoints Disease-oriented evidence HCTZ controls hypertension Atorvastatin treats hypercholesterole mia Alendronate treats osteoporosis Medications for diabetes lower blood sugar Surrogate marker

Clinical outcomes that matter HCTZ decreases BP HCTZ decreases mortality in patients with HTN Atorvastatin substantially reduces LDL-C Atorvastatin reduces Heart attack,

stroke, mortality Alendronate improves BMD Alendronate decreases hip fx & vertebral fx Decreased A1C Reduced CV risk and mortality Question 3: Which is a surrogate endpoint that may or may not translate to a clinical endpoint? A. Nonfatal myocardial infarction

B. Overall Survival C. Stroke D. Hemoglobin A1c E. Hip Fracture Does a statistically significant reduction of a lipid panel result in a clinically significant reduction in CV events? Lipid lowering drugs and cardiovascular outcomes The ACC/AHA 2013 guideline concluded that non-statin therapies for cholesterol lowering are NOT RECOMMENDED unless statins are not tolerated. Specifically, ezetimibe was the agent of choice for additional add on therapy with statins. Fibrates have a minimal effect on the lipid profile. Can increase risk of myopathy, especially when given with ezetimibe or statins, and increase the risk of cholelithiasis. Only gained the expert opinion strength of recommendation for their place in therapy in patients with TG > 500 mg/dL.

Decrease TG ~ 20-50% Increase HDL ~ 15% Decrease LDL ~ 5-20% (but can increase LDL when TG are high) Cannon, Christopher P., et al. "Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes." New England Journal of Medicine 372.25 (2015): 2387-2397. Jacobson, Terry A., et al. "National lipid association recommendations for patient-centered management of dyslipidemia: part 1full report." Journal of clinical lipidology 9.2 (2015): 129-169. Stone, Neil J., et al. "2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults." Circulation(2013): 01-cir. Fenofibrates and cardiovascular outcomes The ACCORD Lipid Trial - Effects of Combination Lipid Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Treatment groups: simvastatin + fenofibrate 160 mg (adjusted according to GFR w/ MDRD). simvastatin + placebo. Similar average daily simvastatin dose between groups.

Mean follow up 4.7 years Primary Outcome first occurrence of major CV event including nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or death from CV cause. Ref: ACCORD Study Group. Effects of combination lipid therapy in T2DM. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1563-74. RESULTS FROM ACCORD LIPID TRIAL Ref: ACCORD Study Group. Effects of combination lipid therapy in T2DM. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1563-74. Subgroup Analysis of Primary Endpoint: ACCORD Lipid Trial Ref: ACCORD Study Group.

Effects of combination lipid therapy in T2DM. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1563-74. Fibrates and CV outcomes: a systemic review and meta analysis Conclusions: Fibrates reduce risk of CV disease largely by preventing coronary events. There was no difference in all cause or cardiovascular mortality. In high risk individuals with combined dyslipidemia, clinically meaningful reductions in risk could be achieved.

Jun M, Foote C, Lv J, Neal B, et al. Effects of fibrates on CV outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2010:375:1875-84. Figure: Effects of fibrates on the risk of coronary events. The following trials showed a statistically significant reduction in coronary events: Trial Study Drug WHO CO-OP Trial Clofibrate Helsinki heart

Gemfibrozil BECAIT Bezafibrate SENDCAP Bezafibrate VA-HIT Gemfibrozil Does an increase in progression free survival result in an increase in overall survival?

Progression Free Survival in Oncology Progression Free Survival (PFS): Common primary endpoint in chemotherapy clinical trials. Establishes the time after treatment of a disease until the patients disease progresses. Overall Survival (OS) Clinically important outcome. Commonly a secondary endpoint, because it takes longer to establish. PFS has become a surrogate for OS, but there are a number of examples when a significant increase in PFS did not correlate to a meaningful increase in OS. BEVACIZUMAB (AVASTIN) AND PFS IN METASTATIC BREAST CANCER Results: PFS - Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab

significantly prolonged PFS compared with paclitaxel alone Median OS similar in the group receiving combined therapy and in the group receiving paclitaxel alone Miller, Kathy, et al. "Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer." New England Journal of Medicine 357.26 (2007): 2666-2676. BEVACIZUMAB (AVASTIN) AND PFS IN METASTATIC BREAST CANCER

Avastin and PFS in Metastatic Breast Cancer D'Agostino Sr, Ralph B. "Changing end points in breast-cancer drug approvalthe Avastin story." New England Journal of Medicine 365.2 (2011): e2. Avastin and PFS in Metastatic Breast Cancer Ref: Sasich LD, Sukkari SR. The US FDAs withdrawal of the breast cancer indication for Avastin (bevacizumab). Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal : SPJ. 2012;20(4):381-385. doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2011.12.001.

Robert, Nicholas J., et al. "RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer." Journal of Clinical Oncology29.10 (2011): 1252-1260. Pivot, Xavier, et al. "Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with docetaxel for the first-line treatment of elderly patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: results from AVADO." European journal of cancer 47.16 (2011): 2387-2395. Does a reduction in A1c result in a reduction in CV events?

Surrogate endpoints in Diabetes: sitagliptan (Januvia) Current standard for FDA approval of diabetes meds is reduction in A1c compared to placebo. sitagliptan (Januvia) consistently ranks in the top 25 selling drugs in the US. The overall least-squares mean difference in A1C during the median 3 year follow up was 0.29% in the sitagliptin group compared to placebo (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.27). Primary composite CV outcome occurred in 839 patients in the sitagliptin group (11.4%) and 851 in the placebo group (11.6%). Noninferiority of sitagliptan CAUSING the composite CV outcome vs placebo was established. Green, Jennifer B., et al. "Effect of sitagliptin on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes." New England Journal of Medicine 373.3 (2015): 232-242. Surrogate endpoints in Diabetes: DPP-4 Inhibitors Outcome/Trials Comparator - N

Results All cause mortality/43 Placebo 31,228 Active 20,182 RR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.931.16, RR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.391.09, P = 0.54 P = 0.10 CV mortality/40 Placebo 30,485

Active 18,094 RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.851.12, RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.442.17, P = 0.70 P = 0.95 ACS outcomes/44 Placebo -33,227 Active 20,235 RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.891.12, RR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.410.96, P = 0.98

P = 0.03 Stroke Outcomes/29 Placebo 28,187 Active 14,550 RR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.861.28, RR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.260.89, P = 0.64 P = 0.02 Heart Failure Outcomes/24 Placebo 27,818

Active 12,563 RR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.011.34, RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.351.81, P = 0.03 P = 0.59 Summary: No statistically significant decrease compared to placebo or active for all cause mortality or mortality related to CV event. Statistically significant increase in Heart Failure outcomes compared to placebo. Ref: Wu, Shiying, et al. "Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors and cardiovascular outcomes: meta analysis of randomized clinical trials with 55,141 participants." Cardiovascular therapeutics 32.4 (2014): 147-158. Final thoughts A poorly conducted study does not necessarily have statistical power over a well done study lower on the medical literature hierarchy. There are a number of ways to display clinical trial data, each with specific shortcomings and parameters for use. A number of medications have gained FDA approval based off surrogate endpoints. After further

testing, several medications, other than those described, failed to show a meaningful clinical benefit. EBM uses the best current evidence to guide treatment decisions. Some situations will never have adequate evidence at the top of the pyramid including,: Orphan diseases Cancer trials that allow crossover As healthcare professionals, we must challenge the utilization of medications without known clinical benefit as drug prices continue to inflate in order to create a more sustainable healthcare system. QUESTIONS???

## Recently Viewed Presentations

• Four Disciplines of Execution) Create a few must do must succeed goals (WIGs) ... The strategy framework must tie core ideology to the value prop, core processes, Human Capital Management, Information Capital Management, and Corporate Culture.
• The branch of biology concerned with the classification of organisms into groups based on similarities of structure, origin, etc. TAXONOMY
• I asked my mom what we were having for dinner. Personal Names. Terms used as descriptive substitutes for proper nouns. ... Shakespeare's career. First word and all nouns in the greeting of a letter- Dear Pastor David Warren and Family,
• For each step, identify its triggers and its inputs and outputs Typical Questions Asked Activities Ask the user to execute the process using the written steps in the use case - that is, have the user role-play the use case...
• Multiple sclerosis is a devastating disease. The first description of the disease was mentioned in 14th century. In 1838 Dr. Charcot connected the symptoms to the pathology of the central nervous system (CNS)
• A flaccid cell (in air) is dropped in the 0.1 M sucrose solution. Because the starting water potential of the cell is less than the water potential of the solution, the cell takes up water. After equilibration, the water potential...
• Arial Times New Roman Wingdings Arial Black Pixel Package Alternate Reality Games The Beast Slide 3 What is an ARG? Example: I Love Bees Example: Last Call Poker Grassroots/Self Sustaining ARGs Vocabulary Tiers of play Real-world crossover Anatomy of a...
• What is an Evidence Based Intervention? Choosing and Implementing Academic and Behavior Interventions That Work. 1) Problem Solving Models (RTI) essentially mean interventions for everyone in need ... School-based Functional Assessment in 2012. ... the function of the behavior has...