Abstract
Abstract
Background
Clinical trials for rare diseases often include multiple endpoints that capture the effects of treatment on different disease domains. In many rare diseases, the primary endpoint is not standardized across trials. The win ratio approach was designed to analyze multiple endpoints of interest in clinical trials and has mostly been applied in cardiovascular trials. Here, we applied the win ratio approach to data from COMET, a phase 3 trial in late-onset Pompe disease, to illustrate how this approach can be used to analyze multiple endpoints in the orphan drug context.
Methods
All possible participant pairings from both arms of COMET were compared sequentially on changes at week 49 in upright forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted and six-minute walk test (6MWT). Each participant’s response for the two endpoints was first classified as a meaningful improvement, no meaningful change, or a meaningful decline using thresholds based on published minimal clinically important differences (FVC ± 4% predicted, 6MWT ± 39 m). Each comparison assessed whether the outcome with avalglucosidase alfa (AVA) was better than (win), worse than (loss), or equivalent to (tie) the outcome with alglucosidase alfa (ALG). If tied on FVC, 6MWT was compared. In this approach, the treatment effect is the ratio of wins to losses (“win ratio”), with ties excluded.
Results
In the 2499 possible pairings (51 receiving AVA × 49 receiving ALG), the win ratio was 2.37 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30–4.29, p = 0.005) when FVC was compared before 6MWT. When the order was reversed, the win ratio was 2.02 (95% CI, 1.13–3.62, p = 0.018).
Conclusion
The win ratio approach can be used in clinical trials of rare diseases to provide meaningful insight on treatment benefits from multiple endpoints and across disease domains.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Pharmacology (medical),Genetics (clinical),General Medicine
Reference25 articles.
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Multiple Endpoints in Clinical Trials: Guidance for Industry. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Food & Drug Administration; Oct 20, 2022. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/162416/download.
2. Pocock SJ, Ariti CA, Collier TJ, Wang D. The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(2):176–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehr352.
3. Redfors B, Gregson J, Crowley A, McAndrew T, Ben-Yehuda O, Stone GW, et al. The win ratio approach for composite endpoints: practical guidance based on previous experience. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(46):4391–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa665.
4. Beal EW, Dalmacy D, Paro A, Hyer JM, Cloyd J, Dillhoff M, et al. Comparing minimally invasive and open pancreaticoduodenectomy for the treatment of pancreatic cancer: a win ratio analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2022;26(8):1697–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-022-05380-3.
5. Bohula EA, Berg DD, Lopes MS, Connors JM, Babar I, Barnett CF, et al. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy for prevention of venous and arterial thrombotic events in critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: COVID-PACT. Circulation. 2022;146(18):1344–56. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.122.061533.