Hui Shao1, Lizheng Shi2, Vivian A Fonseca3. 1. Department of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville, FL. 2. Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA. 3. Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA vfonseca@tulane.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the ability of the Building, Relating, Assessing, and Validating Outcomes (BRAVO) risk engine to accurately project cardiovascular outcomes in three major clinical trials-BI 10773 (Empagliflozin) Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG OUTCOME), Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS), and Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (DECLARE-TIMI 58) trial-on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) to treat patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Baseline data from the publications of the three trials were obtained and entered into the BRAVO model to predict cardiovascular outcomes. Projected benefits of reducing risk factors of interest (A1C, systolic blood pressure [SBP], LDL, or BMI) on cardiovascular events were evaluated, and simulated outcomes were compared with those observed in each trial. RESULTS: BRAVO achieved the best prediction accuracy when simulating outcomes of the CANVAS and DECLARE-TIMI 58 trials. For EMPA-REG OUTCOME, a mild bias was observed (∼20%) in the prediction of mortality and angina. The effect of risk reduction on outcomes in treatment versus placebo groups predicted by the BRAVO model strongly correlated with the observed effect of risk reduction on the trial outcomes as published. Finally, the BRAVO engine revealed that most of the clinical benefits associated with SGLT2i treatment are through A1C control, although reductions in SBP and BMI explain a proportion of the observed decline in cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: The BRAVO risk engine was effective in predicting the benefits of SGLT2is on cardiovascular health through improvements in commonly measured risk factors, including A1C, SBP, and BMI. Since these benefits are individually small, the use of the complex, dynamic BRAVO model is ideal to explain the cardiovascular outcome trial results.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the ability of the Building, Relating, Assessing, and Validating Outcomes (BRAVO) risk engine to accurately project cardiovascular outcomes in three major clinical trials-BI 10773 (Empagliflozin) Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG OUTCOME), Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS), and Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (DECLARE-TIMI 58) trial-on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) to treat patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Baseline data from the publications of the three trials were obtained and entered into the BRAVO model to predict cardiovascular outcomes. Projected benefits of reducing risk factors of interest (A1C, systolic blood pressure [SBP], LDL, or BMI) on cardiovascular events were evaluated, and simulated outcomes were compared with those observed in each trial. RESULTS: BRAVO achieved the best prediction accuracy when simulating outcomes of the CANVAS and DECLARE-TIMI 58 trials. For EMPA-REG OUTCOME, a mild bias was observed (∼20%) in the prediction of mortality and angina. The effect of risk reduction on outcomes in treatment versus placebo groups predicted by the BRAVO model strongly correlated with the observed effect of risk reduction on the trial outcomes as published. Finally, the BRAVO engine revealed that most of the clinical benefits associated with SGLT2i treatment are through A1C control, although reductions in SBP and BMI explain a proportion of the observed decline in cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: The BRAVO risk engine was effective in predicting the benefits of SGLT2is on cardiovascular health through improvements in commonly measured risk factors, including A1C, SBP, and BMI. Since these benefits are individually small, the use of the complex, dynamic BRAVO model is ideal to explain the cardiovascular outcome trial results.
Authors: Bertram Pitt; Willem Remme; Faiez Zannad; James Neaton; Felipe Martinez; Barbara Roniker; Richard Bittman; Steve Hurley; Jay Kleiman; Marjorie Gatlin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-03-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sebhat Erqou; Chee-Tin Christine Lee; Matthew Suffoletto; Justin B Echouffo-Tcheugui; Rudolf A de Boer; Joost P van Melle; Amanda I Adler Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Wenhui Zhao; Peter T Katzmarzyk; Ronald Horswell; Yujie Wang; Jolene Johnson; Gang Hu Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2013-01-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Peter Gaede; Pernille Vedel; Nicolai Larsen; Gunnar V H Jensen; Hans-Henrik Parving; Oluf Pedersen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-01-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brian R Lindman; Victor G Dávila-Román; Douglas L Mann; Steven McNulty; Marc J Semigran; Gregory D Lewis; Lisa de las Fuentes; Susan M Joseph; Justin Vader; Adrian F Hernandez; Margaret M Redfield Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Andrew J Palmer; Lei Si; Michelle Tew; Xinyang Hua; Michael S Willis; Christian Asseburg; Phil McEwan; José Leal; Alastair Gray; Volker Foos; Mark Lamotte; Talitha Feenstra; Patrick J O'Connor; Michael Brandle; Harry J Smolen; James C Gahn; William J Valentine; Richard F Pollock; Penny Breeze; Alan Brennan; Daniel Pollard; Wen Ye; William H Herman; Deanna J Isaman; Shihchen Kuo; Neda Laiteerapong; An Tran-Duy; Philip M Clarke Journal: Value Health Date: 2018-04-09 Impact factor: 5.725