Analysis of composite time-to-event endpoints in cardiovascular outcome trials.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-08 DOI:10.1177/17407745241267999
Rachel Marceau West, Gregory Golm, Devan V Mehrotra
{"title":"Analysis of composite time-to-event endpoints in cardiovascular outcome trials.","authors":"Rachel Marceau West, Gregory Golm, Devan V Mehrotra","doi":"10.1177/17407745241267999","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Composite time-to-event endpoints are commonly used in cardiovascular outcome trials. For example, the IMPROVE-IT trial comparing ezetimibe+simvastatin to placebo+simvastatin in 18,144 patients with acute coronary syndrome used a primary composite endpoint with five component outcomes: (1) cardiovascular death, (2) non-fatal stroke, (3) non-fatal myocardial infarction, (4) coronary revascularization ≥30 days after randomization, and (5) unstable angina requiring hospitalization. In such settings, the traditional analysis compares treatments using the observed time to the occurrence of the first (i.e. earliest) component outcome for each patient. This approach ignores information for subsequent outcome(s), possibly leading to reduced power to demonstrate the benefit of the test versus the control treatment. We use real data examples and simulations to contrast the traditional approach with several alternative approaches that use data for all the intra-patient component outcomes, not just the first.</p>","PeriodicalId":10685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Trials","volume":" ","pages":"576-583"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745241267999","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Composite time-to-event endpoints are commonly used in cardiovascular outcome trials. For example, the IMPROVE-IT trial comparing ezetimibe+simvastatin to placebo+simvastatin in 18,144 patients with acute coronary syndrome used a primary composite endpoint with five component outcomes: (1) cardiovascular death, (2) non-fatal stroke, (3) non-fatal myocardial infarction, (4) coronary revascularization ≥30 days after randomization, and (5) unstable angina requiring hospitalization. In such settings, the traditional analysis compares treatments using the observed time to the occurrence of the first (i.e. earliest) component outcome for each patient. This approach ignores information for subsequent outcome(s), possibly leading to reduced power to demonstrate the benefit of the test versus the control treatment. We use real data examples and simulations to contrast the traditional approach with several alternative approaches that use data for all the intra-patient component outcomes, not just the first.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
分析心血管结果试验中的复合时间到事件终点。
复合时间事件终点常用于心血管结果试验。例如,IMPROVE-IT 试验比较了依折麦布+ 辛伐他汀和安慰剂+ 辛伐他汀对 18,144 名急性冠脉综合征患者的治疗效果,该试验使用的主要复合终点包括五个部分:(1) 心血管死亡;(2) 非致死性卒中;(3) 非致死性心肌梗死;(4) 随机分组后≥30 天的冠状动脉血运重建;(5) 需要住院治疗的不稳定型心绞痛。在这种情况下,传统的分析方法是根据观察到的每位患者第一个(即最早的)部分结果发生的时间来比较治疗方法。这种方法忽略了后续结果的信息,可能会降低证明试验与对照治疗获益的能力。我们使用真实数据示例和模拟,将传统方法与几种替代方法进行对比,这些替代方法使用的是患者体内所有部分结果的数据,而不仅仅是第一个结果的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Trials
Clinical Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Trials is dedicated to advancing knowledge on the design and conduct of clinical trials related research methodologies. Covering the design, conduct, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of key methodologies, the journal remains on the cusp of the latest topics, including ethics, regulation and policy impact.
期刊最新文献
Challenges in conducting efficacy trials for new COVID-19 vaccines in developed countries. Society for Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committee initiative website: Closing the gap. A comparison of computational algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of clinical trials. Comparison of Bayesian and frequentist monitoring boundaries motivated by the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial. Efficient designs for three-sequence stepped wedge trials with continuous recruitment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1