Methodological issues in the use of composite endpoints in clinical trials: examples from the HIV field

Author:

Wittkop Linda1,Smith Colette2,Fox Zoe2,Sabin Caroline2,Richert Laura3,Aboulker Jean-Pierre4,Phillips Andrew2,Chêne Genevieve3,Babiker Abdel5,Thiébaut Rodolphe3,

Affiliation:

1. Inserm U897, Research Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Bordeaux, France, , ISPED, School of Public Health, University of Bordeaux 2, Bordeaux, France

2. Royal Free Centre for HIV Medicine, Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Royal Free and University College Medical School, London, UK

3. Inserm U897, Research Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Bordeaux, France, ISPED, School of Public Health, University of Bordeaux 2, Bordeaux, France

4. INSERM SC10, Villejuif, France

5. MRC Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK

Abstract

Background In many fields, the choice of a primary endpoint for a trial is not always the ultimate clinical endpoint of interest, but rather some surrogate endpoint believed to be relevant for predicting the effect of the intervention on the clinical endpoint. The classic example of such a field is clinical HIV treatment research, where a variety of primary endpoints are used to evaluate the efficacy of new antiretroviral drugs or new combinations of existing drugs. The choice of endpoint reflects either the goal of therapy as recommended by treatment guidelines (e.g. rapid virological suppression) or the licensing requirements of official drug approval organizations (e.g. time to loss of virological response [TLOVR]). Purpose To review the diversity of endpoints used in recent clinical trials in HIV infection and highlight the methodological issues. Methods We identified articles relating to antiretroviral therapy by searching PubMed and through hand searches of relevant conference abstracts. We restricted the search to randomized controlled trials conducted in HIV-infected adults published/presented from January 2005 until March 2008. Results We identified 28 trials in antiretroviral-naive patients (i.e. patients who were starting antiretroviral therapy for the first time at the time of randomization) and 23 trials in antiretroviral-experienced patients. Most trials were performed for purposes of drug licensing, but others were focused on strategies of using approved drugs. Most trials (40 of 51) used a composite primary endpoint (TLOVR in 13). Of note, 22 of these 40 studies reported that they had used a purely virological efficacy endpoint, but the primary endpoint was actually a composite one due to the way in which missing data and treatment switches were considered as failures. Limitations Examples are restricted to HIV clinical trials. Conclusions Whilst most current HIV clinical trials use composite primary endpoints, there are substantial differences in the components that make up these endpoints. In HIV and other fields where precise definitions are variable, guidelines for standardization of definition and reporting would greatly improve the ability to compare trial results. Clinical Trials 2010; 7: 19—35. http:// ctj.sagepub.com

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Pharmacology,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3