Cargando…

Endpoint selection for noninferiority percutaneous coronary intervention trials: a methodological description

BACKGROUND: The objective of this review is to provide a practical update on endpoint selection for noninferiority (NI) studies in percutaneous coronary intervention studies. METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted for predefined terms to explore the use of NI designs and intrapatient comparisons to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Waliszewski, Matthias, Rosenberg, Mark, Rittger, Harald, Breul, Viktor, Krackhardt, Florian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7074513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32168991
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1753944720911329
_version_ 1783506850585509888
author Waliszewski, Matthias
Rosenberg, Mark
Rittger, Harald
Breul, Viktor
Krackhardt, Florian
author_facet Waliszewski, Matthias
Rosenberg, Mark
Rittger, Harald
Breul, Viktor
Krackhardt, Florian
author_sort Waliszewski, Matthias
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The objective of this review is to provide a practical update on endpoint selection for noninferiority (NI) studies in percutaneous coronary intervention studies. METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted for predefined terms to explore the use of NI designs and intrapatient comparisons to determine their current importance. Sample size calculations for the most frequently used endpoints with NI hypotheses were done to increase statistical awareness. RESULTS: Reported NI trials, with the most frequently chosen clinical endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), had NI margins ranging from 1.66% to 5.00%, resulting in patient populations of 400–1500 per treatment group. Clinical study endpoints comprising of MACE complemented with rates of bleeding complications and stent thrombosis (ST) are suggested to conduct a statistically and clinically meaningful NI trial. Study designs with surrogate endpoints amenable to intrapatient randomizations, are a very attractive option to reduce the number of necessary patients by about half. Comparative clinical endpoint studies with MACE and ST/bleeding rates to study a shortened dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in coronary stent trials are feasible, whereas ST as the sole primary endpoint is not useful. CONCLUSIONS: Expanded composite clinical endpoints (MACE complemented by ST and bleeding rates and intrapatient randomization for selected surrogate endpoints) may be suitable tools to meet future needs in device approval, recertification and reimbursement.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7074513
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70745132020-03-23 Endpoint selection for noninferiority percutaneous coronary intervention trials: a methodological description Waliszewski, Matthias Rosenberg, Mark Rittger, Harald Breul, Viktor Krackhardt, Florian Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis Review BACKGROUND: The objective of this review is to provide a practical update on endpoint selection for noninferiority (NI) studies in percutaneous coronary intervention studies. METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted for predefined terms to explore the use of NI designs and intrapatient comparisons to determine their current importance. Sample size calculations for the most frequently used endpoints with NI hypotheses were done to increase statistical awareness. RESULTS: Reported NI trials, with the most frequently chosen clinical endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), had NI margins ranging from 1.66% to 5.00%, resulting in patient populations of 400–1500 per treatment group. Clinical study endpoints comprising of MACE complemented with rates of bleeding complications and stent thrombosis (ST) are suggested to conduct a statistically and clinically meaningful NI trial. Study designs with surrogate endpoints amenable to intrapatient randomizations, are a very attractive option to reduce the number of necessary patients by about half. Comparative clinical endpoint studies with MACE and ST/bleeding rates to study a shortened dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in coronary stent trials are feasible, whereas ST as the sole primary endpoint is not useful. CONCLUSIONS: Expanded composite clinical endpoints (MACE complemented by ST and bleeding rates and intrapatient randomization for selected surrogate endpoints) may be suitable tools to meet future needs in device approval, recertification and reimbursement. SAGE Publications 2020-03-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7074513/ /pubmed/32168991 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1753944720911329 Text en © The Author(s), 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Review
Waliszewski, Matthias
Rosenberg, Mark
Rittger, Harald
Breul, Viktor
Krackhardt, Florian
Endpoint selection for noninferiority percutaneous coronary intervention trials: a methodological description
title Endpoint selection for noninferiority percutaneous coronary intervention trials: a methodological description
title_full Endpoint selection for noninferiority percutaneous coronary intervention trials: a methodological description
title_fullStr Endpoint selection for noninferiority percutaneous coronary intervention trials: a methodological description
title_full_unstemmed Endpoint selection for noninferiority percutaneous coronary intervention trials: a methodological description
title_short Endpoint selection for noninferiority percutaneous coronary intervention trials: a methodological description
title_sort endpoint selection for noninferiority percutaneous coronary intervention trials: a methodological description
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7074513/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32168991
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1753944720911329
work_keys_str_mv AT waliszewskimatthias endpointselectionfornoninferioritypercutaneouscoronaryinterventiontrialsamethodologicaldescription
AT rosenbergmark endpointselectionfornoninferioritypercutaneouscoronaryinterventiontrialsamethodologicaldescription
AT rittgerharald endpointselectionfornoninferioritypercutaneouscoronaryinterventiontrialsamethodologicaldescription
AT breulviktor endpointselectionfornoninferioritypercutaneouscoronaryinterventiontrialsamethodologicaldescription
AT krackhardtflorian endpointselectionfornoninferioritypercutaneouscoronaryinterventiontrialsamethodologicaldescription