Number needed to treat: enigmatic results for exacerbations in COPD

Current Status and Future Opportunities in Lung Precision Medicine Research with a Focus on Biomarkers. An American Thoracic Society/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Research Statement

BACKGROUND

Thousands of biomarker tests are either available or under development for lung diseases. In many cases, adoption of these tests into clinical practice is outpacing the generation and evaluation of sufficient data to determine clinical utility and ability to improve health outcomes. There is a need for a systematically organized report that provides guidance on how to understand and evaluate use of biomarker tests for lung diseases.

METHODS

We assembled a diverse group of clinicians and researchers from the American Thoracic Society and leaders from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute with expertise in various aspects of precision medicine to review the current status of biomarker tests in lung diseases. Experts summarized existing biomarker tests that are available for lung cancer, pulmonary arterial hypertension, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cystic fibrosis, and other rare lung diseases. The group identified knowledge gaps that future research studies can address to efficiently translate biomarker tests into clinical practice, assess their cost-effectiveness, and ensure they apply to diverse, real-life populations.

RESULTS

We found that the status of biomarker tests in lung diseases is highly variable depending on the disease. Nevertheless, biomarker tests in lung diseases show great promise in improving clinical care. To efficiently translate biomarkers into tests used widely in clinical practice, researchers need to address specific clinical unmet needs, secure support for biomarker discovery efforts, conduct analytical and clinical validation studies, ensure tests have clinical utility, and facilitate appropriate adoption into routine clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Although progress has been made toward implementation of precision medicine for lung diseases in clinical practice in certain settings, additional studies focused on addressing specific unmet clinical needs are required to evaluate the clinical utility of biomarkers; ensure their generalizability to diverse, real-life populations; and determine their cost-effectiveness.

Precision health: treating the individual patient with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is defined based on a reduced ratio of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁ ) to forced vital capacity (FVC) on spirometry. However, within this definition, there is significant heterogeneity of pathophysiological processes that lead to airflow obstruction and variation in phenotypic manifestations across patients. Current pharmacological treatments are based on large randomised clinical trials that apply to an "average" patient. Precision health enables tailoring of treatment for each individual patient by taking into account their unique characteristics. The number needed to treat (NNT) metric is often used to define implementation of precision health for specific interventions, with common endpoints requiring an NNT ≤ 5 to achieve precision therapy. Higher NNTs may be acceptable for rare but important endpoints such as mortality. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists and inhaled corticosteroids, which are commonly used in COPD, have 1-year treatment NNTs between 15 and 20 for exacerbation prevention in unselected patients with COPD. Subgroup identification using biomarkers or clinical traits may enable precision health. For example, NNT for inhaled corticosteroids is 9 in patients with a blood eosinophil count ≥ 300 cells/μL and 8 for long-acting muscarinic antagonists in patients with a body mass index ≤ 20 kg/m² . Lung volume reduction surgery is associated with an NNT of 6 for survival over 5 years in patients with upper lobe-predominant disease and low exercise capacity (whereas the NNT is 245 when no bioimaging or exercise markers are used). Continuous domiciliary oxygen therapy (for at least 15 hours/day) has an NNT of 5 for survival over 5 years in patients with resting hypoxemia (PaO₂  < 60 mmHg on room air). Emerging areas of precision health in COPD with potential for low NNTs in specific circumstances include anti-interleukin-5 therapy for eosinophilic COPD, and immunoglobulin replacement therapy for patients with severe immunoglobulin deficiency.

Introduction to precision medicine in COPD

Although there has been tremendous growth in our understanding of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and its pathophysiology over the past few decades, the pace of therapeutic innovation has been extremely slow. COPD is now widely accepted as a heterogeneous condition with multiple phenotypes and endotypes. Thus, there is a pressing need for COPD care to move from the current “one-size-fits-all” approach to a precision medicine approach that takes into account individual patient variability in genes, environment and lifestyle. Precision medicine is enabled by biomarkers that can: 1) accurately identify subgroups of patients who are most likely to benefit from therapeutics and those who will only experience harm (predictive biomarkers); 2) predict therapeutic responses to drugs at an individual level (response biomarkers); and 3) segregate patients who are at risk of poor outcomes from those who have relatively stable disease (prognostic biomarkers). In this essay, we will discuss the current concept of precision medicine and its relevance for COPD and explore ways to implement precision medicine for millions of patients across the world with COPD.

The Number Needed to Treat: 25 Years of Trials and Tribulations in Clinical Research

The number needed to treat (NNT) is a simple measure of a treatment's impact, increasingly reported in randomized trials and observational studies, but often incorrectly calculated in studies involving varying follow-up times. We discuss the NNT in these contexts and illustrate the concept using several published studies. While the computation of the NNT is founded on the cumulative incidence of the outcome, several published studies use simple proportions that do not account for varying follow-up times, or use incidence rates per person-time. We show how these approaches can lead to erroneous values of the NNT and misleading interpretations. For example, a trial of 3,845 very elderly hypertensives randomized to a diuretic or placebo reported a NNT of 94 treated for 2 years to prevent one stroke, though the correct approach results in a NNT of 63. Also, meta-analyses involving trials of differing lengths often report a single NNT, such as the meta-analysis of 22 trials of the anticholinergic tiotropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that reported a NNT of 16 patients "over one year," even if the trials varied in duration from 3 to 48 months, with the actual NNTs varying widely from 15 to 250. Finally, we describe the value of the NNT in assessing benefit-risk, such as low-dose aspirin use in secondary prevention of mortality assessed against the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. As the "number needed to treat" becomes increasingly used in the comparative effectiveness and safety of therapies, its accurate estimation and interpretation become crucial to avoid distorting clinical, economic, and public health decisions.