Skip to main content
PMC home page
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases logoLink to Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
. 2003 Apr;62(4):316–321. doi: 10.1136/ard.62.4.316

Number needed to treat (NNT): implication in rheumatology clinical practice

M Osiri 1, M Suarez-Almazor 1, G Wells 1, V Robinson 1, P Tugwell 1
PMCID: PMC1754501  PMID: 12634229

Abstract

Objective: To calculate the number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) from the data in rheumatology clinical trials and systematic reviews.

Methods: The NNTs for the clinically important outcome measures in the rheumatology systematic reviews from the Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2000 and in the original randomised, double blind, controlled trials were calculated. The measure used for calculating the NNT in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) interventions was the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement or Paulus criteria; in osteoarthritis (OA) interventions, the improvement of pain; and in systemic sclerosis (SSc) interventions, the improvement of Raynaud's phenomenon. The NNH was calculated from the rate of withdrawals due to adverse events from the treatment.

Results: The data required for the calculation of the NNT were available in 15 systematic reviews and 11 original articles. For RA interventions, etanercept treatment for six months had the smallest NNT (1.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4 to 2.0), whereas leflunomide had the largest NNH (9.6; 95% CI 6.8 to 16.7). For OA treatment options, only etodolac and tenoxicam produced significant pain relief compared with placebo (NNT=4.4; 95% CI 2.4 to 24.4 and 3.8; 95% CI 2.5 to 7.3, respectively). For SSc interventions, none were shown to be efficacious in improving Raynaud's phenomenon because the 95% CI of the NNT was infinite.

Conclusions: The NNT and NNH are helpful for clinicians, enabling them to translate the results from clinical trials and systematic reviews to use in routine clinical practice. Both NNT and NNH should be accompanied by a limited 95% CI and adjusted for the individual subject's baseline risk.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (182.3 KB).

Figure 1 .

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) in RA clinical trials and systematic reviews. *95% CI not calculated for non-significant results. SSZ, sulfasalazine; MTX, methotrexate; CYC, cyclophosphamide; AZA, azathioprine; D-Pen, D-penicillamine; CsA, cyclosporin A; Pred, prednisolone; TJC, tender joint count.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. A randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine in early rheumatoid arthritis: the HERA Study. Am J Med. 1995 Feb;98(2):156–168. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(99)80399-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Boers M., Verhoeven A. C., Markusse H. M., van de Laar M. A., Westhovens R., van Denderen J. C., van Zeben D., Dijkmans B. A., Peeters A. J., Jacobs P. Randomised comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine with sulphasalazine alone in early rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 1997 Aug 2;350(9074):309–318. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)01300-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cook R. J., Sackett D. L. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ. 1995 Feb 18;310(6977):452–454. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6977.452. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Felson D. T., Anderson J. J., Boers M., Bombardier C., Furst D., Goldsmith C., Katz L. M., Lightfoot R., Jr, Paulus H., Strand V. American College of Rheumatology. Preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Jun;38(6):727–735. doi: 10.1002/art.1780380602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Glasziou P. P., Irwig L. M. An evidence based approach to individualising treatment. BMJ. 1995 Nov 18;311(7016):1356–1359. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7016.1356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Guyatt G. H., Sackett D. L., Cook D. J. Users' guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. B. What were the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994 Jan 5;271(1):59–63. doi: 10.1001/jama.271.1.59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Laupacis A., Sackett D. L., Roberts R. S. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988 Jun 30;318(26):1728–1733. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198806303182605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Maini R., St Clair E. W., Breedveld F., Furst D., Kalden J., Weisman M., Smolen J., Emery P., Harriman G., Feldmann M. Infliximab (chimeric anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha monoclonal antibody) versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving concomitant methotrexate: a randomised phase III trial. ATTRACT Study Group. Lancet. 1999 Dec 4;354(9194):1932–1939. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)05246-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. McQuay H. J., Moore R. A. Using numerical results from systematic reviews in clinical practice. Ann Intern Med. 1997 May 1;126(9):712–720. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-126-9-199705010-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Moreland L. W., Schiff M. H., Baumgartner S. W., Tindall E. A., Fleischmann R. M., Bulpitt K. J., Weaver A. L., Keystone E. C., Furst D. E., Mease P. J. Etanercept therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1999 Mar 16;130(6):478–486. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-130-6-199903160-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Norman G. R., Sridhar F. G., Guyatt G. H., Walter S. D. Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care. 2001 Oct;39(10):1039–1047. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200110000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Paulus H. E., Egger M. J., Ward J. R., Williams H. J. Analysis of improvement in individual rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, based on the findings in patients treated with placebo. The Cooperative Systematic Studies of Rheumatic Diseases Group. Arthritis Rheum. 1990 Apr;33(4):477–484. doi: 10.1002/art.1780330403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Smolen J. S., Kalden J. R., Scott D. L., Rozman B., Kvien T. K., Larsen A., Loew-Friedrich I., Oed C., Rosenburg R. Efficacy and safety of leflunomide compared with placebo and sulphasalazine in active rheumatoid arthritis: a double-blind, randomised, multicentre trial. European Leflunomide Study Group. Lancet. 1999 Jan 23;353(9149):259–266. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)09403-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Strand V., Cohen S., Schiff M., Weaver A., Fleischmann R., Cannon G., Fox R., Moreland L., Olsen N., Furst D. Treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis with leflunomide compared with placebo and methotrexate. Leflunomide Rheumatoid Arthritis Investigators Group. Arch Intern Med. 1999 Nov 22;159(21):2542–2550. doi: 10.1001/archinte.159.21.2542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Townes A. S., Sowa J. M., Shulman L. E. Controlled trial of cyclophosphamide in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1976 May-Jun;19(3):563–573. doi: 10.1002/art.1780190308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Tugwell P., Pincus T., Yocum D., Stein M., Gluck O., Kraag G., McKendry R., Tesser J., Baker P., Wells G. Combination therapy with cyclosporine and methotrexate in severe rheumatoid arthritis. The Methotrexate-Cyclosporine Combination Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1995 Jul 20;333(3):137–141. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199507203330301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Ward J. R., Williams H. J., Egger M. J., Reading J. C., Boyce E., Altz-Smith M., Samuelson C. O., Jr, Willkens R. F., Solsky M. A., Hayes S. P. Comparison of auranofin, gold sodium thiomalate, and placebo in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A controlled clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum. 1983 Nov;26(11):1303–1315. doi: 10.1002/art.1780261102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Williams H. J., Ward J. R., Reading J. C., Egger M. J., Grandone J. T., Samuelson C. O., Furst D. E., Sullivan J. M., Watson M. A., Guttadauria M. Low-dose D-penicillamine therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. A controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum. 1983 May;26(5):581–592. doi: 10.1002/art.1780260502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Williams H. J., Willkens R. F., Samuelson C. O., Jr, Alarcón G. S., Guttadauria M., Yarboro C., Polisson R. P., Weiner S. R., Luggen M. E., Billingsley L. M. Comparison of low-dose oral pulse methotrexate and placebo in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A controlled clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum. 1985 Jul;28(7):721–730. doi: 10.1002/art.1780280702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES