John W Pickering1, Christopher M Frampton, Zoltán H Endre. 1. Christchurch Kidney Research Group, Department of Medicine, University of Otago-Christchurch, P.O. Box 4345, Christchurch, New Zealand. john.pickering@otago.ac.nz
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials of acute kidney injury (AKI) use changes in creatinine as outcome metrics. This study investigated how outcome metrics and baseline creatinine affect trial outcome. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A one-compartment pharmacokinetic model of creatinine change resulting from a decrease in GFR was applied to a population of 10,000 simulated virtual inpatients. Treatment was simulated as an amelioration of GFR decrease by a specified percentage, the treatment efficacy, in 50%. Three categorical and two continuous outcome metrics were calculated and compared. Outcomes were compared for measured and estimated baseline creatinine levels that were back-calculated assuming a GFR of 100 or 75 ml/min. RESULTS: The continuous metrics, the average value of creatinine and the average value of creatinine relative to baseline decreased approximately linearly with increase in treatment efficacy. The categorical metrics displayed a sigmoidal decrease and erroneously suggested perfect treatment when GFR decrease was ameliorated by only 60 to 80%. Using an estimate of baseline creatinine increased the number of patients who were classified as having AKI. CONCLUSIONS: When used to determine clinical trial outcome, continuous metrics correctly detected the extent of intervention. At low treatment efficacy, categorical metrics underestimated and at high treatment efficacy overestimated the effect of treatment. These effects were exaggerated when the population contained a high proportion of patients with more severe AKI. An estimated baseline creatinine level will overestimate AKI prevalence compared with a measured baseline value. Clinical trials of AKI should use a continuous outcome metric and a measured baseline and report baseline median and interquartile range.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials of acute kidney injury (AKI) use changes in creatinine as outcome metrics. This study investigated how outcome metrics and baseline creatinine affect trial outcome. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A one-compartment pharmacokinetic model of creatinine change resulting from a decrease in GFR was applied to a population of 10,000 simulated virtual inpatients. Treatment was simulated as an amelioration of GFR decrease by a specified percentage, the treatment efficacy, in 50%. Three categorical and two continuous outcome metrics were calculated and compared. Outcomes were compared for measured and estimated baseline creatinine levels that were back-calculated assuming a GFR of 100 or 75 ml/min. RESULTS: The continuous metrics, the average value of creatinine and the average value of creatinine relative to baseline decreased approximately linearly with increase in treatment efficacy. The categorical metrics displayed a sigmoidal decrease and erroneously suggested perfect treatment when GFR decrease was ameliorated by only 60 to 80%. Using an estimate of baseline creatinine increased the number of patients who were classified as having AKI. CONCLUSIONS: When used to determine clinical trial outcome, continuous metrics correctly detected the extent of intervention. At low treatment efficacy, categorical metrics underestimated and at high treatment efficacy overestimated the effect of treatment. These effects were exaggerated when the population contained a high proportion of patients with more severe AKI. An estimated baseline creatinine level will overestimate AKI prevalence compared with a measured baseline value. Clinical trials of AKI should use a continuous outcome metric and a measured baseline and report baseline median and interquartile range.
Authors: Eric A J Hoste; Jorn Damen; Raymond C Vanholder; Norbert H Lameire; Joris R Delanghe; Kristof Van den Hauwe; Francis A Colardyn Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2005-02-08 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: I Raymond; F Pedersen; F Steensgaard-Hansen; A Green; M Busch-Sorensen; C Tuxen; J Appel; J Jacobsen; D Atar; P Hildebrandt Journal: Heart Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Steven G Coca; Azadeh Zabetian; Bart S Ferket; Jing Zhou; Jeffrey M Testani; Amit X Garg; Chirag R Parikh Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Carlo Andrea Bravi; Emily Vertosick; Nicole Benfante; Amy Tin; Daniel Sjoberg; A Ari Hakimi; Karim Touijer; Francesco Montorsi; James Eastham; Paul Russo; Andrew Vickers Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Zoltán H Endre; John W Pickering; Robert J Walker; Prasad Devarajan; Charles L Edelstein; Joseph V Bonventre; Christopher M Frampton; Michael R Bennett; Qing Ma; Venkata S Sabbisetti; Vishal S Vaidya; Angela M Walcher; Geoffrey M Shaw; Seton J Henderson; Maryam Nejat; John B W Schollum; Peter M George Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Azrina Md Ralib; John W Pickering; Geoffrey M Shaw; Prasad Devarajan; Charles L Edelstein; Joseph V Bonventre; Zoltan H Endre Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Jay L Koyner; Vishal S Vaidya; Michael R Bennett; Qing Ma; Elaine Worcester; Shahab A Akhter; Jai Raman; Valluvan Jeevanandam; Micheal F O'Connor; Prasad Devarajan; Joseph V Bonventre; Patrick T Murray Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-08-26 Impact factor: 8.237