The number needed to treat (NNT) is a simple measure of a treatment’s impact, increasingly reported in randomized trials and observational studies. It has been found to be incorrectly calculated in several studies involving varying follow-up times. We discuss the NNT in these contexts and illustrate the concept using several published studies. The computation of the NNT is founded on the cumulative incidence of the outcome. Instead, 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. We also note that meta-analyses involve trials of differing lengths, but often report a single NNT. For example a meta-analysis of 22 trials of the anticholinergic tiotropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease reported a NNT of 16 patients “over one year,” even if the trials varied in duration from 3 to 48 months, with the more specifically computed NNTs varying widely from 72, 15, and 250 for the 3-month, 12-month, and 48-month trials, respectively. Finally, we describe the value of the NNT in assessing benefit–risk, such as low-dose aspirin use in secondary prevention, where prevention of mortality was 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.
Feelings of guilt have tormented Holocaust survivors, ranging from immediately after the liberation to later in life, for shorter or longer periods, and persisting for some throughout their entire post-war lives. Descriptions of the guilt experienced by survivors of the Nazi camps occupy an impressive amount of literature: “Why me?” was the question, when a younger and more able family member perished; “Why me?” when more productive members of the community perished; “Why me?” when a million and a half children were deprived of their lives. Many found the answer by retelling their stories, witnesses of what happened. This type of guilt is much different from the recently described phenomenon of survivor syndrome, namely the secondary guilt felt by Nazi-persecuted Jewish writers. Despite successes in all aspects of their life, these writers developed a self-incriminating guilt due to their perceived inadequacy of communicating, particularly in light of the resurging anti-Semitism worldwide. This paper deals with the survival and suicides of Nazi-persecuted Jewish writers and offers a possible explanation for their late self-destructive acts.
Introduction. The current study evaluated the rate of ependymal enhancement and whether its presence influences survival of patients with malignant glioma (GBM).
Methods. A retrospective review of all patients who were treated in our institution from 2005 to 2011 was conducted. Data extracted from the medical records included age, date of diagnosis, co-morbidities, treatment regimen, and time of death. Magnetic resonance images (MRI) were evaluated for the presence of ependymal enhancement and its extent, and the correlation to survival was investigated.
Results. Between 2005 and 2011, 230 patients were treated for GBM. Eighty-nine patients were excluded from the study due to insufficient data, leaving 141 patients for analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 60 years. Sixty-seven (40.6%) patients had evidence of ependymal enhancement on MRI (group A), and 70 (42.4%) patients did not have evidence of enhancement. The assessment of ependymal enhancement was inconclusive due to mass effect and ventricular compression that precluded accurate assessment for 28 (17%) patients (group C). Median survival was 14 months for group A (range, 12–16 months), 15.9 months for group B (range, 14.28–17.65 months), and 11.7 months for group C (range, 6.47–16.92 months) (P>0.05). A multivariate analysis to predict survival indicated that male gender (P=0.039), hypertension (P=0.012), and biopsy only compared to complete gross tumor resection (P=0.001) were significant for poor survival.
Conclusions. Pretreatment ependymal enhancement on MRI was not found to be associated with poorer survival. These results might be due to better treatments options compared to prior reports.
Medicine is developing through biomedical technology and innovations. The goal of any innovation in medicine is to improve patient care. Exponential growth in technology has led to the unprecedented growth of medical technology over the last 50 years. Clinician-scientists need to understand the complexity of the innovation process, from concept to product release, when working to bring new clinical solutions to the bedside. Hence, an overview of the innovation process is provided herein. The process involves an invention designed to solve an unmet need, followed by prototype design and optimization, animal studies, pilot and pivotal studies, and regulatory approval. The post-marketing strategy relative to funding, along with analysis of cost benefit, is a critical component for the adoption of new technologies. Examples of the road to innovation are provided, based on the experience with development of the transcatheter aortic valve. Finally, ideas are presented to contribute to the further development of this worldwide trend in innovation.
An anniversary is not only a point of memory—it provides the opportunity for self-examination and paves the way to the future. Every anniversary marks a starting-point that was preceded by a vision. The beginning of any vision is a personal dream—someone wants to improve or repair the world as far as he is able. The vision motivates action; in its aftermath comes the reality. This is the 21st issue of Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal. This issue is particularly important as it marks the completion of five years of creative work pursuing our vision for a high-caliber scientific medical journal. Our vision has become reality.
Background: Following the announcement of actress Angelina Jolie’s prophylactic bilateral mastectomies and subsequent prophylactic oophorectomy, there has been a dramatic increase in interest in BRCA testing and prophylactic surgery.
Objective: To review current medical literature on the benefits of prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy among BRCA-positive women and its permissibility under Jewish law.
Results: Recent literature suggests that in BRCA-positive women who undergo prophylactic oophorectomy the risk of dying of breast cancer is reduced by 90%, the risk of dying of ovarian cancer is reduced by 95%, and the risk of dying of any cause is reduced by 77%. The risk of breast cancer is further reduced by prophylactic mastectomy. Prophylactic oophorectomy and prophylactic mastectomy pose several challenges within Jewish law that call into question the permissibility of surgery, including mutilation of a healthy organ, termination of fertility, self-wounding, and castration. A growing number of Jewish legal scholars have found grounds to permit prophylactic surgery among BRCA carriers, with some even obligating prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy.
Conclusion: Current data suggest a significant reduction in mortality from prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy in BRCA carriers. While mutilation of healthy organs is intrinsically forbidden in Jewish law, the ability to preserve human life may contravene and even mandate prophylactic surgery.
As I shared in my January 2015 editorial, the furor surrounding publication in The Lancet of the open letter by P. Manduca et al. carried potential for bad and for good. Here at Rambam Health Care Campus, we have chosen and will continue to look for the good.
Azoospermia, the absence of any sperm cells from the ejaculated semen, poses a real challenge to the fertility urologist. While there are options to create happy families for azoospermic couples, such as the use of donor sperm and adoption, most couples still want to have genetically related offspring. Advances in urology, gynecology, and fertility laboratory technologies allow surgical sperm retrieval in azoospermic men and achievement of live births for many, but not all azoospermic couples. At present, there are extensive research efforts in several directions to create new fertility options by creating “artificial sperm cells.” While these new horizons are exciting, there are significant obstacles that must be overcome before such innovative solutions can be offered to azoospermic couples. The present review article defines the problem, describes the theoretical basis for creation of artificial genetically related sperm cells, and provides an update on current successes and challenges in the long tortuous path to achieve the ultimate goal: enabling every azoospermic couple to have their own genetically related offspring. Hopefully, these research efforts will ripen in the foreseeable future, resulting in the ability to create artificial sperm cells and provide such couples with off-the-shelf solutions and fulfilling their desire to parent genetically related healthy babies.
George London was one of the most compelling vocal artists of the early twentieth century. At the age of 47, the great bass-baritone retired from singing. It has been suggested that the premature ending of his operatic career was due to unilateral vocal cord palsy (UVCP). When London retired, the common belief was that this UVCP was caused by viral hepatitis, although there is no evidence to support such an etiology. London’s medical records eliminate the possible etiology of a neck neoplasm, and the long period of time between a heart attack he experienced and his diagnosis of UVCP makes a cardiovascular etiology an unlikely causative factor. London’s relatively young age, the diagnosis of laryngitis prior to his UVCP, and the course of his disease indicate that the underlying cause of the termination of his singing career was post-viral neuropathy. This paper describes the clinical evidence related to London’s vocal cord function and explores the possible causes for his UVCP, which apparently led to his early retirement.
Background: Guidelines and Class 1 evidence are strong factors that help guide surgeons’ decision-making, but dilemmas exist in selecting the best surgical option, usually without the benefit of guidelines or Class 1 evidence. A few studies have discussed the variability of surgical treatment options that are currently available, but no study has examined surgeons’ views on the influential factors that encourage them to choose one surgical treatment over another. This study examines the influential factors and the thought process that encourage surgeons to make these decisions in such circumstances.
Methods: Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 32 senior consultant surgeons, surgical fellows, and senior surgical residents at the University of Toronto teaching hospitals. An e-mail was sent out for volunteers, and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and subjected to thematic analysis using open and axial coding.
Results: Broadly speaking there are five groups of factors affecting surgeons’ decision-making: medical condition, information, institutional, patient, and surgeon factors. When information factors such as guidelines and Class 1 evidence are lacking, the other four groups of factors—medical condition, institutional, patient, and surgeon factors (the last-mentioned likely being the most powerful)—play a significant role in guiding surgical decision-making.
Conclusions: This study is the first qualitative study on surgeons’ perspectives on the influential factors that help them choose one surgical treatment option over another for their patients.
