Lesley A Inker1, Hiddo J L Heerspink2, Hocine Tighiouart3,4, Andrew S Levey5, Josef Coresh6, Ron T Gansevoort7, Andrew L Simon5, Jian Ying8, Gerald J Beck9, Christoph Wanner10, Jürgen Floege11, Philip Kam-Tao Li12, Vlado Perkovic13, Edward F Vonesh14, Tom Greene8. 1. Division of Nephrology and LInker@tuftsmedicalcenter.org. 2. Departments of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology and. 3. The Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Division of Nephrology and. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 7. Nephrology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 8. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 9. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 10. Division of Nephrology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. 11. Division of Nephrology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. 12. Division of Nephrology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong; LInker@tuftsmedicalcenter.org. 13. George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; and. 14. Department of Preventive Medicine, Division of Biostatistics, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surrogate end points are needed to assess whether treatments are effective in the early stages of CKD. GFR decline leads to kidney failure, but regulators have not approved using differences in the change in GFR from the beginning to the end of a randomized, controlled trial as an end point in CKD because it is not clear whether small changes in the GFR slope will translate to clinical benefits. METHODS: To assess the use of GFR slope as a surrogate end point for CKD progression, we performed a meta-analysis of 47 RCTs that tested 12 interventions in 60,620 subjects. We estimated treatment effects on GFR slope (mean difference in GFR slope between the randomized groups), for the total slope starting at baseline, chronic slope starting at 3 months after randomization, and on the clinical end point (doubling of serum creatinine, GFR<15 ml/min per 1.73 m2, or ESKD) for each study. We used Bayesian mixed-effects analyses to describe the association of treatment effects on GFR slope with the clinical end point and to test how well the GFR slope predicts a treatment's effect on the clinical end point. RESULTS: Across all studies, the treatment effect on 3-year total GFR slope (median R 2=0.97; 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI], 0.78 to 1.00) and on the chronic slope (R 2 0.96; 95% BCI, 0.63 to 1.00) accurately predicted treatment effects on the clinical end point. With a sufficient sample size, a treatment effect of 0.75 ml/min per 1.73 m2/yr or greater on total slope over 3 years or chronic slope predicts a clinical benefit on CKD progress with at least 96% probability. CONCLUSIONS: With large enough sample sizes, GFR slope may be a viable surrogate for clinical end points in CKD RCTs.
BACKGROUND: Surrogate end points are needed to assess whether treatments are effective in the early stages of CKD. GFR decline leads to kidney failure, but regulators have not approved using differences in the change in GFR from the beginning to the end of a randomized, controlled trial as an end point in CKD because it is not clear whether small changes in the GFR slope will translate to clinical benefits. METHODS: To assess the use of GFR slope as a surrogate end point for CKD progression, we performed a meta-analysis of 47 RCTs that tested 12 interventions in 60,620 subjects. We estimated treatment effects on GFR slope (mean difference in GFR slope between the randomized groups), for the total slope starting at baseline, chronic slope starting at 3 months after randomization, and on the clinical end point (doubling of serum creatinine, GFR<15 ml/min per 1.73 m2, or ESKD) for each study. We used Bayesian mixed-effects analyses to describe the association of treatment effects on GFR slope with the clinical end point and to test how well the GFR slope predicts a treatment's effect on the clinical end point. RESULTS: Across all studies, the treatment effect on 3-year total GFR slope (median R 2=0.97; 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI], 0.78 to 1.00) and on the chronic slope (R 2 0.96; 95% BCI, 0.63 to 1.00) accurately predicted treatment effects on the clinical end point. With a sufficient sample size, a treatment effect of 0.75 ml/min per 1.73 m2/yr or greater on total slope over 3 years or chronic slope predicts a clinical benefit on CKD progress with at least 96% probability. CONCLUSIONS: With large enough sample sizes, GFR slope may be a viable surrogate for clinical end points in CKD RCTs.
Authors: E J Lewis; L G Hunsicker; W R Clarke; T Berl; M A Pohl; J B Lewis; E Ritz; R C Atkins; R Rohde; I Raz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-09-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jackson T Wright; George Bakris; Tom Greene; Larry Y Agodoa; Lawrence J Appel; Jeanne Charleston; DeAnna Cheek; Janice G Douglas-Baltimore; Jennifer Gassman; Richard Glassock; Lee Hebert; Kenneth Jamerson; Julia Lewis; Robert A Phillips; Robert D Toto; John P Middleton; Stephen G Rostand Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-11-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Bart D Maes; Raymond Oyen; Kathleen Claes; Pieter Evenepoel; Dirk Kuypers; Johan Vanwalleghem; Boudewijn Van Damme; Yves F Ch Vanrenterghem Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Jennifer J Gassman; Tom Greene; Jackson T Wright; Lawrence Agodoa; George Bakris; Gerald J Beck; Janice Douglas; Ken Jamerson; Julia Lewis; Michael Kutner; Otelio S Randall; Shin-Ru Wang Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Claudio Pozzi; Simeone Andrulli; Lucia Del Vecchio; Patrizia Melis; Giovanni B Fogazzi; Paolo Altieri; Claudio Ponticelli; Francesco Locatelli Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Simon A Carter; Talia Gutman; Charlotte Logeman; Dan Cattran; Liz Lightstone; Arvind Bagga; Sean J Barbour; Jonathan Barratt; John Boletis; Dawn Caster; Rosanna Coppo; Fernando C Fervenza; Jürgen Floege; Michelle Hladunewich; Jonathan J Hogan; A Richard Kitching; Richard A Lafayette; Ana Malvar; Jai Radhakrishnan; Brad H Rovin; Nicole Scholes-Robertson; Hérnan Trimarchi; Hong Zhang; Karolis Azukaitis; Yeoungjee Cho; Andrea K Viecelli; Louese Dunn; David Harris; David W Johnson; Peter G Kerr; Paul Laboi; Jessica Ryan; Jenny I Shen; Lorena Ruiz; Angela Yee-Moon Wang; Achilles Hoi Kan Lee; Samuel Fung; Matthew Ka-Hang Tong; Armando Teixeira-Pinto; Martin Wilkie; Stephen I Alexander; Jonathan C Craig; Allison Tong Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Tom Greene; Jian Ying; Edward F Vonesh; Hocine Tighiouart; Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh; Jennifer S Herrick; Enyu Imai; Tazeen H Jafar; Bart D Maes; Ronald D Perrone; Lucia Del Vecchio; Jack F M Wetzels; Hiddo J L Heerspink; Lesley A Inker Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Morgan E Grams; Yingying Sang; Shoshana H Ballew; Kunihiro Matsushita; Brad C Astor; Juan Jesus Carrero; Alex R Chang; Lesley A Inker; Timothy Kenealy; Csaba P Kovesdy; Brian J Lee; Adeera Levin; David Naimark; Michelle J Pena; Jesse D Schold; Varda Shalev; Jack F M Wetzels; Mark Woodward; Ron T Gansevoort; Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Adeera Levin; Vlado Perkovic; David C Wheeler; Stefan Hantel; Jyothis T George; Maximilian von Eynatten; Audrey Koitka-Weber; Christoph Wanner Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Ian H de Boer; Leila R Zelnick; John Ruzinski; Georgina Friedenberg; Julie Duszlak; Vadim Y Bubes; Andrew N Hoofnagle; Ravi Thadhani; Robert J Glynn; Julie E Buring; Howard D Sesso; JoAnn E Manson Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 56.272