Literature DB >> 25632312

Opportunities and challenges of clinical trials in cardiology using composite primary endpoints.

Geraldine Rauch1, Bernhard Rauch1, Svenja Schüler1, Meinhard Kieser1.   

Abstract

In clinical trials, the primary efficacy endpoint often corresponds to a so-called "composite endpoint". Composite endpoints combine several events of interest within a single outcome variable. Thereby it is intended to enlarge the expected effect size and thereby increase the power of the study. However, composite endpoints also come along with serious challenges and problems. On the one hand, composite endpoints may lead to difficulties during the planning phase of a trial with respect to the sample size calculation, as the expected clinical effect of an intervention on the composite endpoint depends on the effects on its single components and their correlations. This may lead to wrong assumptions on the sample size needed. Too optimistic assumptions on the expected effect may lead to an underpowered of the trial, whereas a too conservatively estimated effect results in an unnecessarily high sample size. On the other hand, the interpretation of composite endpoints may be difficult, as the observed effect of the composite does not necessarily reflect the effects of the single components. Therefore the demonstration of the clinical efficacy of a new intervention by exclusively evaluating the composite endpoint may be misleading. The present paper summarizes results and recommendations of the latest research addressing the above mentioned problems in the planning, analysis and interpretation of clinical trials with composite endpoints, thereby providing a practical guidance for users.

Keywords:  Adaptive designs; Competing risks; Composite endpoint; Multiple testing; Time-to-event

Year:  2015        PMID: 25632312      PMCID: PMC4306200          DOI: 10.4330/wjc.v7.i1.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Cardiol


  16 in total

1.  Generalized pairwise comparisons of prioritized outcomes in the two-sample problem.

Authors:  Marc Buyse
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Planning and analyzing adaptive group sequential survival trials.

Authors:  Gernot Wassmer
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.207

3.  Composite and surrogate outcomes in randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Nick Freemantle; Mel Calvert
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-04-14

Review 4.  Bayesian sample size calculations for a non-inferiority test of two proportions in clinical trials.

Authors:  Takashi Daimon
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2007-12-23       Impact factor: 2.226

Review 5.  Clinical perspectives on the use of composite endpoints.

Authors:  C P Cannon
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1997-12

6.  Planning and evaluating clinical trials with composite time-to-first-event endpoints in a competing risk framework.

Authors:  G Rauch; J Beyersmann
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-04-02       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Easily applicable multiple testing procedures to improve the interpretation of clinical trials with composite endpoints.

Authors:  Svenja Schüler; Annegret Mucha; Patrick Doherty; Meinhard Kieser; Geraldine Rauch
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 4.164

8.  The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities.

Authors:  Stuart J Pocock; Cono A Ariti; Timothy J Collier; Duolao Wang
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2011-09-06       Impact factor: 29.983

9.  OMEGA, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to test the effect of highly purified omega-3 fatty acids on top of modern guideline-adjusted therapy after myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Bernhard Rauch; Rudolf Schiele; Steffen Schneider; Frank Diller; Norbert Victor; Helmut Gohlke; Martin Gottwik; Gerhard Steinbeck; Ulrike Del Castillo; Rudolf Sack; Heinrich Worth; Hugo Katus; Wilhelm Spitzer; Georg Sabin; Jochen Senges
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2010-11-08       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  Determining the most appropriate components for a composite clinical trial outcome.

Authors:  M Angelyn Bethel; Rury Holman; Steven M Haffner; Robert M Califf; Alice Huntsman-Labed; Tsushung A Hua; John McMurray
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2008-07-31       Impact factor: 4.749

View more
  7 in total

1.  Time-to-first-event versus recurrent-event analysis: points to consider for selecting a meaningful analysis strategy in clinical trials with composite endpoints.

Authors:  Geraldine Rauch; Meinhard Kieser; Harald Binder; Antoni Bayes-Genis; Antje Jahn-Eimermacher
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 5.460

2.  Bin-CE: A comprehensive web application to decide upon the best set of outcomes to be combined in a binary composite endpoint.

Authors:  Josep Ramon Marsal; Ignacio Ferreira-González; Aida Ribera; Gerard Oristrell; Jose Ignacio Pijoan; David García-Dorado
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-12-13       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Win Ratio -An Intuitive and Easy-To-Interpret Composite Outcome in Medical Studies.

Authors:  Hongyue Wang; Jing Peng; Juila Z Zheng; Bokai Wang; Xiang Lu; Chongshu Chen; Xin M Tu; Changyong Feng
Journal:  Shanghai Arch Psychiatry       Date:  2017-02-25

Review 4.  Impact of biologic therapies on risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with psoriasis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  W Rungapiromnan; Z Z N Yiu; R B Warren; C E M Griffiths; D M Ashcroft
Journal:  Br J Dermatol       Date:  2017-03-14       Impact factor: 9.302

5.  A DAG-based comparison of interventional effect underestimation between composite endpoint and multi-state analysis in cardiovascular trials.

Authors:  Antje Jahn-Eimermacher; Katharina Ingel; Stella Preussler; Antoni Bayes-Genis; Harald Binder
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-07-04       Impact factor: 4.615

6.  Are component endpoints equal? A preference study into the practice of composite endpoints in clinical trials.

Authors:  Melissa C W Vaanholt; Marlies M Kok; Clemens von Birgelen; Marieke G M Weernink; Janine A van Til
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Composite endpoint to evaluate complement inhibition therapy in patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria.

Authors:  Austin Kulasekararaj; Axel Glasmacher; Peng Liu; Jeff Szer; David Araten; Geraldine Rauch; Chad Gwaltney; J Rafael Sierra; Jong Wook Lee
Journal:  Eur J Haematol       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 3.674

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.