BACKGROUND: Nearly all available treatments for pulmonary arterial hypertension have been approved based on change in 6-minute walk distance (Δ6MWD) as a clinically important end point, but its validity as a surrogate end point has never been shown. We aimed to validate the difference in Δ6MWD against the probability of a clinical event in pulmonary arterial hypertension trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: First, to determine whether Δ6MWD between baseline and 12 weeks mediated the relationship between treatment assignment and development of clinical events, we conducted a pooled analysis of patient-level data from the 10 randomized placebo-controlled trials previously submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (n=2404 patients). Second, to identify a threshold effect for the Δ6MWD that indicated a statistically significant reduction in clinical events, we conducted a meta-regression among 21 drug/dose-level combinations. Δ6MWD accounted for 22.1% (95% confidence interval, 12.1%- 31.1%) of the treatment effect (P<0.001). The meta-analysis showed an average difference in Δ6MWD of 22.4 m (95% confidence interval, 17.4-27.5 m), favoring active treatment over placebo. Active treatment decreased the probability of a clinical event (summary odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.57). The meta-regression revealed a significant threshold effect of 41.8 m. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that Δ6MWD does not explain a large proportion of the treatment effect, has only modest validity as a surrogate end point for clinical events, and may not be a sufficient surrogate end point. Further research is necessary to determine whether the threshold value of 41.8 m is valid for long-term outcomes or whether it differs among trials using background therapy or lacking placebo controls entirely.
BACKGROUND: Nearly all available treatments for pulmonary arterial hypertension have been approved based on change in 6-minute walk distance (Δ6MWD) as a clinically important end point, but its validity as a surrogate end point has never been shown. We aimed to validate the difference in Δ6MWD against the probability of a clinical event in pulmonary arterial hypertension trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: First, to determine whether Δ6MWD between baseline and 12 weeks mediated the relationship between treatment assignment and development of clinical events, we conducted a pooled analysis of patient-level data from the 10 randomized placebo-controlled trials previously submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (n=2404 patients). Second, to identify a threshold effect for the Δ6MWD that indicated a statistically significant reduction in clinical events, we conducted a meta-regression among 21 drug/dose-level combinations. Δ6MWD accounted for 22.1% (95% confidence interval, 12.1%- 31.1%) of the treatment effect (P<0.001). The meta-analysis showed an average difference in Δ6MWD of 22.4 m (95% confidence interval, 17.4-27.5 m), favoring active treatment over placebo. Active treatment decreased the probability of a clinical event (summary odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.57). The meta-regression revealed a significant threshold effect of 41.8 m. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that Δ6MWD does not explain a large proportion of the treatment effect, has only modest validity as a surrogate end point for clinical events, and may not be a sufficient surrogate end point. Further research is necessary to determine whether the threshold value of 41.8 m is valid for long-term outcomes or whether it differs among trials using background therapy or lacking placebo controls entirely.
Authors: Nazzareno Galiè; Hossein A Ghofrani; Adam Torbicki; Robyn J Barst; Lewis J Rubin; David Badesch; Thomas Fleming; Tamiza Parpia; Gary Burgess; Angelo Branzi; Friedrich Grimminger; Marcin Kurzyna; Gérald Simonneau Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-11-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: S Miyamoto; N Nagaya; T Satoh; S Kyotani; F Sakamaki; M Fujita; N Nakanishi; K Miyatake Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Horst Olschewski; Gerald Simonneau; Nazzareno Galiè; Timothy Higenbottam; Robert Naeije; Lewis J Rubin; Sylvia Nikkho; Rudolf Speich; Marius M Hoeper; Jürgen Behr; Jörg Winkler; Olivier Sitbon; Wladimir Popov; H Ardeschir Ghofrani; Alessandra Manes; David G Kiely; Ralph Ewert; Andreas Meyer; Paul A Corris; Marion Delcroix; Miguel Gomez-Sanchez; Harald Siedentop; Werner Seeger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Corey E Ventetuolo; Nicole B Gabler; Jason S Fritz; K Akaya Smith; Harold I Palevsky; James R Klinger; Scott D Halpern; Steven M Kawut Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-06-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jason S Fritz; Christiana Blair; Ronald J Oudiz; Christopher Dufton; Horst Olschewski; Darrin Despain; Hunter Gillies; Steven M Kawut Journal: Chest Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Rennie L Rhee; Nicole B Gabler; Sapna Sangani; Amy Praestgaard; Peter A Merkel; Steven M Kawut Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-11-01 Impact factor: 21.405