8/18/10
1
Evidence Based Medicine, Family Physicians, and
Knowledge Translation (KATIE)
David Gardner PharmD, MSc Michael Allen MD
Dalhousie Refresher February 2010
2
Disclosure
David Gardner Michael Allen Research/ development projects:
Department of Health, NS NSHRF Pfizer
Department of Health, NS Health Canada
Honouraria (expert/ speaker):
AstraZeneca Canadian Pharmacists
Association Mental Health
Commission of Canada
Canadian Optimal Medication Prescribing and Utilization Service (COMPUS)
3
Objectives
• Introduce the KATIE program
• Raise your awareness about the importance of understanding basic terms that express therapeutic effects
4
5
A Pervasive Concern
Continuing Medical Education often fails to lead to practice change.
Weinert et al Curr Opin Crit Care 2008
Green & Seifert. J Am Board Fam Pract 2005
Awareness
Acceptance
Adop2on
6
The KATIE Program … because sometimes knowledge needs a translator
Objective
To narrow the knowledge-to-action gap by improving the effectiveness of continuing education and related activities .
The KATIE Program prioritizes the learner’s role in achieving this objective.
8/18/10
2
7
Knowledge Translation has gone from country peasant to royalty
8
Knowledge Translation a.k.a Knowledge-to-Action
Research Phase I-IV
Information dissemination
Information filtering and synthesis
Knowledge exchange
Action planning
Action implementation
Action evaluation
Service providers
individuals
clinics
departments
organizations
Policy makers
Adm
inistrators
9
Knowledge Translation a.k.a Knowledge-to-Action
10
The KATIE Program … because sometimes knowledge needs a translator
Method
Social marketing to effect a change in learning culture
Targets:
Learners
Presenters/CME developers
11
Less of … More of …
12
Less of …
More of …
Can you use this in your prac2ce? How?
More of …
8/18/10
3
13
What the KATIE Program IS
• A transformational influence that: – Supports physicians and pharmacists in
making the most of their learning activities – Promotes presenters and learners to focus
on appraising and applying new information
• To be used in any learning situation – Conference – Evening presentation – One-on-one meetings – Readings
• Enduring 14
What the KATIE Program is NOT
• NOT a certification or approval program of CME content or speakers
• NOT an activity that occurs only in formal learning settings
• NOT a course in critical appraisal • NOT a course in statistics This is a KATIE
approved program
15
KATIE is a Collaborative Program
Drug Evaluation Unit
O’HALLORAN DESIGN
JOHN SHAW
GRAPHIC DESIGN
16
KATIE Program Components and Activities
1. The KATIE Card The appraisal/apply KT aid and reminder
2. Katie on the 52 Crosstown The unorthodox critical appraisal teaching series
3. KATIE @ CME Programs: • An enduring presence of simple messages,
reminder icons
4. KATIE for speakers 5. www.katie.dal.ca
17
To enhance CE learning and meaningful dialogue: – learners – presenters
An knowledge-to-action aid and reminder: – Emphasis on
• Critical appraisal (… should …) • Application (… how …)
CE Programs: – Copies available – Content integrated
Aid for presenters 18
8/18/10
4
19
Who
Outcomes
Numbers
Compared to
Believability
Chance
Follow Up
Drop-‐Outs
Risks
Missing
Worth
Str. of Evidence
Big Picture
20
Mr. Edwards learns about Torturing Numbers
21
The KATIE Program THEMES & ICONS
22
When you see this image, what thoughts come to mind?
Marketing 101
23
Marketing 101
Performance
Safety
24
Marketing 101
Butt of jokes
Jokes
8/18/10
5
25
What about these?
26
Marketing 101
Woman with butterfly
Appraise Apply
Don’t know? Just ask
27
Program developers:
Michael Allen
David Gardner
Tanya Hill
Pam McLean-‐Veysey
Andrea Murphy
Glenn Rodrigues
Corinne Tobin 28
Feedback
• Visit our booth • Complete the Refresher’s
evaluation • Participate in upcoming surveys,
focus groups, or workshops
February Refresher Focus Group: Friday, 7:00 – 8:15 Workshop: Friday, 10:30 – 12:00
Over to you Mike …
30
Epidemiology
8/18/10
6
31
Risk
• Risk is the probability of an event or outcome occurring, e.g., – Death – Myocardial infarction – Stroke – Healing of ulcers
32
Risk
• Risk is the probability of an event or outcome occurring
• Probability is number between 0 and 1 or a percentage 0.4 or 40%
• Risk sometimes referred to as event rate
33
Risk
• Event occurs in 400 out of 1000 persons • Risk = 400/1000 = 0.4 or 40% • In a randomized controlled trial
Relative risk = risk in study group / risk in placebo group
34
Relative Risk
• Risk in study group / risk in placebo group – Drug disease in 100 / 1000 people
• Risk = 0.1 or 10%
– Placebo disease in 400 / 1000 people • Risk = 0.4 or 40%
• Relative risk = 0.1 / 0.4 = 0.25 or 25% • Relative risk reduction =
– 1 minus relative risk – 1 minus 0.25 = 0.75 or 75%
Efficacy or Percent of events prevented
35
Absolute Risk Reduction
• Relative risk = Risk in study group / risk in placebo group
• Relative risk reduction = 1 minus relative risk (percent of events prevented)
• Absolute risk reduction = Risk in study group minus risk in placebo group
36
Relative vs absolute values
• Drug disease in 100 / 1000 people = 10% • PBO disease in 400 / 1000 people = 40%
• Relative risk = 10/40 = 0.25 or 25% • Relative risk reduction = 1 – 0.25 = 75%
• Absolute risk reduction = 40% - 10% = 30% • Number needed to treat = 1/ARR = 1/0.3 = 3.3
Risk
8/18/10
7
37
Relative vs absolute values
• Drug disease in 10 / 1000 people = 1% • PBO disease in 40 / 1000 people = 4%
• Relative risk = 1/4 = 0.25 or 25% • Relative risk reduction = 1 – 0.25 = 75%
• Absolute risk reduction = 4% - 1% = 3% • Number needed to treat = 1/ARR = 1/0.03 = 33
Risk
38
Relative vs absolute values
PBO Drug RRR ARR NNT
400 40%
100 10% 75% 30% 3.3
40 4%
10 1% 75% 3% 33
Events / percent
1000 patients in placebo and drug group
39
Number Needed to Treat - NNT
• The number of patients who need to be treated to prevent one bad outcome. – If NNT is 10
• Have to treat 10 patients in order to prevent 1 bad outcome OR
• 1 in 10 people will benefit
• Important to know the period of time. • Generally, should not extrapolate beyond
period of the study 40
Number Needed to Treat
• What’s a good NNT? • Depends
– Severity of outcome – Cost of the drug – Adverse effects of the drug – Duration of therapy
• Ideal is NNT = 1
41
Number Needed to Treat
Condition Intervention Events prevented Time NNT
DBP 115-1291 Antihypertensives Death, stroke, MI 1.5 yrs 8
DBP 90-1091 Antihypertensives Death, stroke, MI 5.5 yrs 128
Mild to mod Donepezil vs PBO No functional 1 yr 7
Alzheimers1 decline
Dyslipidemia Statins CHD death or MI 5 yrs 57 primary prvn2
1 Evidence-based Medicine 3rd Edition 2005
2 Dalhousie Academic Detailing Service 2005
42
Relative vs absolute values
• Number needed to treat - NNT – The inverse of the absolute risk reduction – If ARR = 10% NNT = 1 / 0.1 = 10 – If ARR = 1.0% NNT = 1 / 0.01 = 100
8/18/10
8
43
Relative vs absolute values
Relative • Odds ratios – OR • Hazard ratios – HR • Relative risk – RR • Relative risk
reduction – RRR
Absolute • Absolute risk
reduction – ARR • Number needed to
treat – NNT
44
95% confidence interval
• A range of values within which we can be 95% sure that the true value lies
• Corresponds to a p-value of 0.05 but provides estimate of precision
• For ratios (odds ratio, hazard ratio, rel risk) – If the CI includes 1, result is not statistically
significant
45
95% confidence interval
• For ratios – If the CI includes 1, result is not statistically
significant • Relative risk of MI = 0.80; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.1 Not sig • Relative risk of MI = 0.80; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.90 Sig
46
95% confidence interval
• Wide confidence interval – Indicates wide variation in result
– Less confident in result
– Often a result of small sample size
47
Think about this RCT …
• Outcomes: non-fatal myocardial infarction and death from coronary heart disease
• Subjects: No history of coronary heart disease (primary prevention).
• Duration: 3.3 years • N: 5100 patients in the control and 5100 patients in the drug
group • The patient characteristics are:
– 80% male – mean age = 63 yrs. – mean blood pressure = 164/95
ASCOT Lancet 2003;361:1149-58
48
1. The drug led to a 36% decrease in the incidence of non-fatal MI and CHD death (relative risk reduction).
2. The drug decreased the rate of non-fatal MI and CHD death from 3.0% to 1.9%, an absolute risk reduction of 1.1%.
3. You would have to treat 94 patients for 3.3 years to prevent one non-fatal MI or a death from CHD (number needed to treat).
4. The 95% confidence intervals around the previous result (ie, treat 94 patients for 3.3 years to avoid one non-fatal MI or CHD death) are 60 and 215.
5. At the end of 3.3 years, 97.0% of patients who don't take the drug will remain free of a cardiac event and 98.1% of patients who take the drug will remain free of a cardiac event (inverse absolute RR).
What is your interpretation of the following results? How likely might you be to prescribe the drug based on each one?
8/18/10
9
49
Patients not having MI or dying - Placebo
Patients having MI or CHD death
Patients NOT having MI or CHD death
50
Patients not having MI or dying - Drug
Patients having MI or CHD death
Patients NOT having MI or CHD death
51
36% relative risk reduction in non-fatal MI and fatal
CHD
Absolute risk reduction 1.1% in non-fatal MI and
fatal CHD NNT=94 (60 to 215)
ASCOT Lancet 2003
48% relative risk reduction in stroke
95% CI 11% to 69%
Absolute risk reduction 1.3% in
stroke NNT 77 (42 to 424)
CARDS Lancet 2004
52
Shingles Prevention Study – Results
Outcome Event rate
Placebo Zostavax
Herpes zoster 3.3% 1.6%
PH neuralgia 0.42% 0.14%
RRR ARR
51% 1.7%
66% 0.3%
Time (Yrs)
NNT 95% CI
4 yrs 59 50 – 72
4 yrs 363 263 – 587
Lyle NEJM 2007;357:1799-1809
53
Atorvastatin: primary prevention
Outcome Event rate
Placebo Atorv
CHD Death Non-fatal MI 3.0% 1.9%
Stroke 2.8% 1.5%
RRR ARR
35% 1.1%
46% 1.3%
Time (Yrs)
NNT 95% CI
3.3 yrs 94 60-215
3.9 yrs 77 42 – 424
ASCOT Lancet 2003; CARDS Lancet 2004 54
Atorvastatin: primary prevention
Outcome Event rate
Placebo Atorv
CHD Death Non-fatal MI 3.0% 1.9%
Stroke 2.8% 1.5%
RRR ARR
35% 1.1%
46% 1.3%
Time (Yrs)
NNT 95% CI
3.3 yrs 94 60-215
3.9 yrs 77 42 – 424
Outcome (Conditions being studied)
Percent of people in
placebo and drug group having the outcome
Relative risk reduction
(Efficacy or percent of
cases prevented)
Absolute risk
reduction (Event rate in placebo
minus event rate
drug)
Number needed to treat
(Number of people we
must treat to prevent one
outcome event)
8/18/10
10
55
Shingles Prevention Study – Results
Outcome Event rate
Placebo Zostavax
Herpes zoster 3.3% 1.6%
PH neuralgia 0.42% 0.14%
RRR ARR
51% 1.7%
66% 0.3%
Time (Yrs)
NNT 95% CI
3.1 yrs 59 50 – 72
3.1 yrs 363 263 – 587
Lyle NEJM 2007;357:1799-1809
Outcome (Conditions being studied)
Percent of people in
placebo and drug group having the outcome
Relative risk reduction
(Efficacy or percent of
cases prevented)
Absolute risk
reduction (Event rate in placebo
minus event rate
drug)
Number needed to treat
(Number of people we
must treat to prevent one
outcome event)
56
ARBs - Reductions in HF Hospitalizations
Pfeffer MA et al. Lancet 2003;363:759-66. Cohn JN et al. N Engl J Med 2001;345:1667-75.
Event rate 24% vs 20% - Hosps RRR 18% ARR 4% NNT 23 (14 – 41) 3.5 yrs
57
Questions to ask
• Is that relative risk reduction or absolute risk reduction?
• What is the number needed to treat? – Over what period of time?
• What are the 95% confidence intervals?
58
More information
• http://www.cebm.utoronto.ca/
• http://cme.medicine.dal.ca/EBM.htm PPT templates and Excel calculator
• Workshop Friday at 1030
Questions?