Joshua M Stolker1, John A Spertus2, David J Cohen2, Philip G Jones2, Kaushik K Jain2, Emily Bamberger2, Brady B Lonergan2, Paul S Chan2. 1. From Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO (J.M.S., K.K.J.); University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City (J.A.S., D.J.C., E.B., B.B.L., P.S.C.); and Saint Luke's Mid America Heart and Vascular Institute; Kansas City, MO (D.J.C., P.G.J., P.S.C.). jstolker@yahoo.com. 2. From Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO (J.M.S., K.K.J.); University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City (J.A.S., D.J.C., E.B., B.B.L., P.S.C.); and Saint Luke's Mid America Heart and Vascular Institute; Kansas City, MO (D.J.C., P.G.J., P.S.C.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many clinical trials use composite end points to reduce sample size, but the relative importance of each individual end point within the composite may differ between patients and researchers. METHODS AND RESULTS: We asked 785 cardiovascular patients and 164 clinical trial authors to assign 25 "spending weights" across 5 common adverse events comprising composite end points in cardiovascular trials: death, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for angina. We then calculated end point ratios for each participant's ratings of each nonfatal end point relative to death. Whereas patients assigned an average weight of 5 to death, equal or greater weight was assigned to myocardial infarction (mean ratio, 1.12) and stroke (ratio, 1.08). In contrast, clinical trialists were much more concerned about death (average weight, 8) than myocardial infarction (ratio, 0.63) or stroke (ratio, 0.53). Both patients and trialists considered revascularization (ratio, 0.48 and 0.20, respectively) and hospitalization (ratio, 0.28 and 0.13, respectively) as substantially less severe than death. Differences between patient and trialist end point weights persisted after adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics (P<0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Patients and clinical trialists did not weigh individual components of a composite end point equally. Whereas trialists are most concerned about avoiding death, patients place equal or greater importance on reducing myocardial infarction or stroke. Both groups considered revascularization and hospitalization as substantially less severe. These findings suggest that equal weights in a composite clinical end point do not accurately reflect the preferences of either patients or trialists.
BACKGROUND: Many clinical trials use composite end points to reduce sample size, but the relative importance of each individual end point within the composite may differ between patients and researchers. METHODS AND RESULTS: We asked 785 cardiovascular patients and 164 clinical trial authors to assign 25 "spending weights" across 5 common adverse events comprising composite end points in cardiovascular trials: death, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for angina. We then calculated end point ratios for each participant's ratings of each nonfatal end point relative to death. Whereas patients assigned an average weight of 5 to death, equal or greater weight was assigned to myocardial infarction (mean ratio, 1.12) and stroke (ratio, 1.08). In contrast, clinical trialists were much more concerned about death (average weight, 8) than myocardial infarction (ratio, 0.63) or stroke (ratio, 0.53). Both patients and trialists considered revascularization (ratio, 0.48 and 0.20, respectively) and hospitalization (ratio, 0.28 and 0.13, respectively) as substantially less severe than death. Differences between patient and trialist end point weights persisted after adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics (P<0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS:Patients and clinical trialists did not weigh individual components of a composite end point equally. Whereas trialists are most concerned about avoiding death, patients place equal or greater importance on reducing myocardial infarction or stroke. Both groups considered revascularization and hospitalization as substantially less severe. These findings suggest that equal weights in a composite clinical end point do not accurately reflect the preferences of either patients or trialists.
Authors: G G Schwartz; A G Olsson; M D Ezekowitz; P Ganz; M F Oliver; D Waters; A Zeiher; B R Chaitman; S Leslie; T Stern Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-04-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Paul W Armstrong; Cynthia M Westerhout; Frans Van de Werf; Robert M Califf; Robert C Welsh; Robert G Wilcox; Jeffrey A Bakal Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: P W Serruys; F Unger; J E Sousa; A Jatene; H J Bonnier; J P Schönberger; N Buller; R Bonser; M J van den Brand; L A van Herwerden; M A Morel; B A van Hout Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-04-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stuart J Connolly; John W Eikelboom; Jennifer Ng; Jack Hirsh; Salim Yusuf; Janice Pogue; Raffaele de Caterina; Stefan Hohnloser; Robert G Hart Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Betty C Tong; Joel C Huber; Deborah D Ascheim; John D Puskas; T Bruce Ferguson; Eugene H Blackstone; Peter K Smith Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2012-07-12 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Emily P Zeitler; Sana M Al-Khatib; Joseph P Drozda; Larry G Kessler; Ajay J Kirtane; David F Kong; John Laschinger; Danica Marinac-Dabic; Marie-Claude Morice; Terrie Reed; Art Sedrakyan; Kenneth M Stein; James Tcheng; Mitchell W Krucoff Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Timothy J Fendler; Michael E Nassif; Kevin F Kennedy; Susan M Joseph; Scott C Silvestry; Gregory A Ewald; Shane J LaRue; Justin M Vader; John A Spertus; Suzanne V Arnold Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Supriya Shore; Kim G Smolderen; Kevin F Kennedy; Philip G Jones; Suzanne V Arnold; David J Cohen; Joshua M Stolker; Zhenxiang Zhao; Tracy Y Wang; P Michael Ho; John A Spertus Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2016-10-25