Search

There is widespread interest in assessing the clinical importance of a study result. This goal is impeded, however, by a lack of clarity about the biological interpretability of epidemiological effect measures, such as the relative risk. A relative risk is often interpreted merely as a measure of some vague statistical association, without a view toward a biological effect as an object of measurement. Not infrequently, if it is not statistically significant, the relative risk estimate is ignored completely. A key to biological interpretation is appreciating the theoretical framework stipulating that outcome rates derived from 2 comparison groups actually represent measures of different effects in the same population. For instance, by using a placebo group to estimate the number of background cases that occurred in the treatment group, an estimate of the number of excess cases that occurred as a result of treatment can be made. This kind of biological entity can be derived from a relative risk, and can be more easily evaluated as to its clinical importance than a statistical association or a statement about statistical significance. Interpretation then becomes a more directed task, with a focus on the validity of certain ancillary hypotheses upon which biological interpretability rests.

To estimate the frequency of adverse effects associated with the use of the transdermal nicotine patch, we abstracted and analysed data from 47 reports of 35 clinical trials. The meta-analysis presented here represents a synthesis of data from 41 groups of nicotine patch recipients totalling 5501 patients, and 33 groups of placebo recipients totalling 3752 patients. Smoking abstinence was the primary outcome in 32 of the trials, and relief of colitis symptoms was the primary outcome in 2 of the trials; 1 study of contact sensitisation was included in the skin irritation analysis. The patch was clearly effective as an aid to smoking abstinence. Despite the large number of patients in the analysis, few adverse cardiovascular outcomes (myocardial infarction, stroke, tachycardia, arrhythmia, angina) were reported, and no excess of these outcomes was detected among patients assigned to nicotine-patch use. The incidences of several minor adverse effects were clearly elevated among the nicotine-patch groups, especially sleep disturbances, nausea or vomiting, localised skin irritation and respiratory symptoms, but the background rates and risk ratios varied considerably across studies. The incidence of nausea or vomiting appeared to be lowest when the patch dose was tapered. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that very large studies would be needed to assess the effect of the patch, if any, on serious, rare outcomes. These results also suggest that the rate of minor adverse effects might be lowered by modifying patch-use protocols.

In order to characterise asthma management in a managed care setting, we identified 10,301 patients who were diagnosed with asthma between 1 January 1988 and 31 December 1991 at a group model health maintenance organisation in central Massachusetts, US. We obtained for these patients automated utilisation files containing data on medications, hospitalisations, emergency room visits, office visits, and estimated costs of these services. The medication dispensed to the greatest proportion of patients was beta 2 agonists either by inhalation (56%) or orally (21%). Theophylline was dispensed to 23% of the patients. Maintenance therapy was inhaled anti-inflammatory medication was uncommon, as inhaled corticosteroids (17%) and sodium cromoglycate (cromolyn sodium) [8%] were dispensed to fewer patients than other asthma medications. Among patients who had been hospitalised in the previous year, 36% were presently receiving inhaled corticosteroids, and among patients who used at least one beta 2 agonist metered-dose inhaler per month, 49% were presently receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Economic analyses showed that only 8% of the patients had either a hospital admission or an emergency room visit, but hospital costs among these patients accounted for 25% of the total costs of asthma care. In addition, the top 10% most expensive patients accounted for 42% of the total cost of asthma care. We conclude that a substantial proportion of patients at increased risk of a severe attack, by virtue of having a recent hospitalisation, do not receive maintenance anti-inflammatory therapy, and that hospitalisations among a relatively small proportion of asthma patients contribute significantly to the cost of asthma care.