OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate whether glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is a valid surrogate for evaluating the effectiveness of antihyperglycemic drugs in diabetes mellitus (DM) trials. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of a treatment on HbA1c (mean difference between groups) and clinical outcomes (relative risk of mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and/or kidney injury) in patients with DM. Then, we investigated the association between treatment effects on HbA1c and clinical outcomes using regression analysis at the trial level. Lastly, we interpreted the correlation coefficients (R) using the cut-off points suggested by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQWiG). HbA1c was considered a valid surrogate if it demonstrated a strong association: lower limit of the 95 percent confidence interval (95 percent CI) of R greater than or equal to .85. RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs were identified. All studies included adults with type 2 DM. None of the associations evaluated was strong enough to validate HbA1c as a surrogate for any clinical outcome: mortality (R = .34; 95 percent CI -.14 to .69), myocardial infarction (R = .20; -.30 to .61), heart failure (R = .08; -.40 to .53), kidney injury (R = -.04; -.52 to .47), and stroke (R = .81; .54 to .93). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from multiple placebo-controlled RCTs does not support the use of HbA1c as a surrogate to measure the effectiveness of antihyperglycemic drugs in DM studies.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate whether glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is a valid surrogate for evaluating the effectiveness of antihyperglycemic drugs in diabetes mellitus (DM) trials. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of a treatment on HbA1c (mean difference between groups) and clinical outcomes (relative risk of mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and/or kidney injury) in patients with DM. Then, we investigated the association between treatment effects on HbA1c and clinical outcomes using regression analysis at the trial level. Lastly, we interpreted the correlation coefficients (R) using the cut-off points suggested by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQWiG). HbA1c was considered a valid surrogate if it demonstrated a strong association: lower limit of the 95 percent confidence interval (95 percent CI) of R greater than or equal to .85. RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs were identified. All studies included adults with type 2 DM. None of the associations evaluated was strong enough to validate HbA1c as a surrogate for any clinical outcome: mortality (R = .34; 95 percent CI -.14 to .69), myocardial infarction (R = .20; -.30 to .61), heart failure (R = .08; -.40 to .53), kidney injury (R = -.04; -.52 to .47), and stroke (R = .81; .54 to .93). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from multiple placebo-controlled RCTs does not support the use of HbA1c as a surrogate to measure the effectiveness of antihyperglycemic drugs in DM studies.