Tom Greene1, Jian Ying1, Edward F Vonesh2, Hocine Tighiouart3,4, Andrew S Levey5, Josef Coresh6, Jennifer S Herrick1, Enyu Imai7, Tazeen H Jafar8,9, Bart D Maes10, Ronald D Perrone5, Lucia Del Vecchio11, Jack F M Wetzels12, Hiddo J L Heerspink13, Lesley A Inker14. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2. Division of Biostatistics, Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies and. 4. Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Division of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 7. Nakayamadera Imai Clinic, Takarazuka, Japan. 8. Program in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore. 9. Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 10. AZ Delta, Roeselare, Belgium. 11. Department of Nephrology and Dialysis, Alessandro Manzoni Hospital, Lecco, Italy. 12. Department of Nephrology, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; and. 13. Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. 14. Division of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; LInker@tuftsmedicalcenter.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of CKD treatments traditionally use clinical events late in CKD progression as end points. This requires costly studies with large sample sizes and long follow-up. Surrogate end points like GFR slope may speed up the evaluation of new therapies by enabling smaller studies with shorter follow-up. METHODS: We used statistical simulations to identify trial situations where GFR slope provides increased statistical power compared with the clinical end point of doubling of serum creatinine or kidney failure. We simulated GFR trajectories based on data from 47 randomized treatment comparisons. We evaluated the sample size required for adequate statistical power based on GFR slopes calculated from baseline and from 3 months follow-up. RESULTS: In most scenarios where the treatment has no acute effect, analyses of GFR slope provided similar or improved statistical power compared with the clinical end point, often allowing investigators to shorten follow-up by at least half while simultaneously reducing sample size. When patients' GFRs are higher, the power advantages of GFR slope increase. However, acute treatment effects within several months of randomization can increase the risk of false conclusions about therapies based on GFR slope. Care is needed in study design and analysis to avoid such false conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Use of GFR slope can substantially increase statistical power compared with the clinical end point, particularly when baseline GFR is high and there is no acute effect. The optimum GFR-based end point depends on multiple factors including the rate of GFR decline, type of treatment effect and study design.
BACKGROUND: Randomized trials of CKD treatments traditionally use clinical events late in CKD progression as end points. This requires costly studies with large sample sizes and long follow-up. Surrogate end points like GFR slope may speed up the evaluation of new therapies by enabling smaller studies with shorter follow-up. METHODS: We used statistical simulations to identify trial situations where GFR slope provides increased statistical power compared with the clinical end point of doubling of serum creatinine or kidney failure. We simulated GFR trajectories based on data from 47 randomized treatment comparisons. We evaluated the sample size required for adequate statistical power based on GFR slopes calculated from baseline and from 3 months follow-up. RESULTS: In most scenarios where the treatment has no acute effect, analyses of GFR slope provided similar or improved statistical power compared with the clinical end point, often allowing investigators to shorten follow-up by at least half while simultaneously reducing sample size. When patients' GFRs are higher, the power advantages of GFR slope increase. However, acute treatment effects within several months of randomization can increase the risk of false conclusions about therapies based on GFR slope. Care is needed in study design and analysis to avoid such false conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Use of GFR slope can substantially increase statistical power compared with the clinical end point, particularly when baseline GFR is high and there is no acute effect. The optimum GFR-based end point depends on multiple factors including the rate of GFR decline, type of treatment effect and study design.
Authors: Tom Greene; Chia-Chen Teng; Lesley A Inker; Andrew Redd; Jian Ying; Mark Woodward; Josef Coresh; Andrew S Levey Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 8.860
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: Frank A Holtkamp; Dick de Zeeuw; Merlin C Thomas; Mark E Cooper; Pieter A de Graeff; Hans J L Hillege; Hans-Henrik Parving; Barry M Brenner; Shahnaz Shahinfar; Hiddo J Lambers Heerspink Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2011-03-30 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Lesley A Inker; Hiddo J Lambers Heerspink; Hasi Mondal; Christopher H Schmid; Hocine Tighiouart; Farzad Noubary; Josef Coresh; Tom Greene; Andrew S Levey Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Vicente E Torres; Arlene B Chapman; Olivier Devuyst; Ron T Gansevoort; Jared J Grantham; Eiji Higashihara; Ronald D Perrone; Holly B Krasa; John Ouyang; Frank S Czerwiec Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-11-03 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Andrew S Levey; Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Alejandro F Castro; Harold I Feldman; John W Kusek; Paul Eggers; Frederick Van Lente; Tom Greene; Josef Coresh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Josef Coresh; Tanvir Chowdhury Turin; Ron T Gansevoort; Andrew S Levey; Kunihiro Matsushita; Yingying Sang; Shoshana H Ballew; Lawrence J Appel; Hisatomi Arima; Steven J Chadban; Massimo Cirillo; Ognjenka Djurdjev; Jamie A Green; Gunnar H Heine; Lesley A Inker; Fujiko Irie; Areef Ishani; Joachim H Ix; Csaba P Kovesdy; Angharad Marks; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Varda Shalev; Anoop Shankar; Chi Pang Wen; Paul E de Jong; Kunitoshi Iseki; Benedicte Stengel Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-06-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lesley A Inker; Hiddo J L Heerspink; Hocine Tighiouart; Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh; Ron T Gansevoort; Andrew L Simon; Jian Ying; Gerald J Beck; Christoph Wanner; Jürgen Floege; Philip Kam-Tao Li; Vlado Perkovic; Edward F Vonesh; Tom Greene 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: Brendon L Neuen; Hocine Tighiouart; Hiddo J L Heerspink; Edward F Vonesh; Juhi Chaudhari; Shiyuan Miao; Tak Mao Chan; Fernando C Fervenza; Jürgen Floege; Marian Goicoechea; William G Herrington; Enyu Imai; Tazeen H Jafar; Julia B Lewis; Philip Kam-Tao Li; Francesco Locatelli; Bart D Maes; Ronald D Perrone; Manuel Praga; Annalisa Perna; Francesco P Schena; Christoph Wanner; Jack F M Wetzels; Mark Woodward; Di Xie; Tom Greene; Lesley A Inker Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: David Z I Cherney; Francesco Cosentino; Samuel Dagogo-Jack; Darren K McGuire; Richard Pratley; Robert Frederich; Mario Maldonado; Chih-Chin Liu; Jie Liu; Annpey Pong; Christopher P Cannon Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 10.614
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
Authors: Lesley A Inker; Hiddo J L Heerspink; Hocine Tighiouart; Juhi Chaudhari; Shiyuan Miao; Ulysses Diva; Alex Mercer; Gerald B Appel; James V Donadio; Jürgen Floege; Philip K T Li; Bart D Maes; Francesco Locatelli; Manuel Praga; Francesco P Schena; Andrew S Levey; Tom Greene Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 11.072