DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00440L

Letter: Composite endpoints in clinical trials - simplicity or perfection?

Iñigo Lozano1,2, MD, PhD; Armando Perez de Prado2,3, MD, PhD; Alicia Quiros4, PhD

We read with great interest the manuscript by Hara et al1 about composite endpoints in cardiovascular disease. We would like to congratulate the authors for their fantastic contribution to the spread of knowledge on this fascinating topic. Composite endpoints are the cornerstone of the primary objective in clinical trials and they define the success or failure of the study. As the authors mention, the Academic Research Consortium has recently established that patient-oriented outcomes should be considered the focus of novel device and pharmacotherapeutic agent assessment. The time-to-first-event method has traditionally been central to the strategy to measure the effects but, as the authors also state, its main limitation is the equalisation of the severity among all the different endpoints. Some very well-known authors have underlined this limitation2. This approach also implies missing the occurrence of events after the first for those patients who suffered more than one event during follow-up. The current manuscript provides an easily understandable guide with which to review all the available options in order to investigate this interesting issue further, although, as we can learn from this review, all the existing options have pros and cons. What is clear is that all the tools mentioned share the favourable feature of a higher level of accuracy compared to the time-to-first-event method. However, at the same time, all of them also present an undesirable feature that may have a profound impact on one, if not the most critical, component of the trial, that is, the sample size, which undoubtedly will be much more difficult to calculate. Besides that, some of these alternatives require sophisticated software and may also be more complex for the readers to interpret. Sensitivity analyses are defined as methods to determine the robustness of an assessment by examining the extent to which results are affected by changes in methods, models, values of unmeasured variables, or assumptions, with the aim of identifying results that are most dependent on questionable or unsupported assumptions3. We believe that a reasonable approach would be a combination of both extremes: we could keep the time-to-first-event method as the tool that measures the composite primary endpoint but we can also add the most appropriate analysis shown in Hara´s review as the sensitivity analysis3 in case the results with the time-to-first-event method are close to the cut-off point of significance. Both the limit for performing the analysis and the method for assessing the sensitivity analysis should be prespecified in the methodology of the study. The additional method should be chosen depending on the design of the trial, because we have seen in this review that each of them has individual characteristics which make them more adequate in certain situations, such as the usefulness of the Cox-based models when the follow-up duration differs from patient to patient and the impossibility of using the negative binomial regression in that particular scenario.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary data

To read the full content of this article, please download the PDF.

Volume 17 Number 13
Jan 28, 2022
Volume 17 Number 13
View full issue


Key metrics

On the same subject

Expert review

10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00953 Apr 2, 2021
Statistical methods for composite endpoints
Hara H et al
free

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00440R Jan 28, 2022
Reply: Composite endpoints in clinical trials - simplicity or perfection?
Hara H et al
free

10.4244/EIJV12I7A135 Sep 18, 2016
Transcatheter aortic valve durability and the dark side of Kaplan-Meier analysis
Capodanno D and Editor D
free

10.4244/EIJV16I18A266 Apr 2, 2021
Similar long-term outcome of dissimilar drug-eluting stents: is it time to change the assessment?
von Birgelen C and Ploumen EH
free

10.4244/EIJV11I6A144 Oct 20, 2015
Getting maximum information out of a continuous outcome: applying linear regression
de Ridder M et al
free
Trending articles
281.38

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00695 Nov 19, 2021
Transcatheter treatment for tricuspid valve disease
Praz F et al
free
243.2

State of the art

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01117 Sep 20, 2022
Recanalisation of coronary chronic total occlusions
Di Mario C et al
free
208.35

State-of-the-Art Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-01034 Jun 3, 2022
Management of in-stent restenosis
Alfonso F et al
free
168.7

Translational research

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00824 May 15, 2022
Bench test and in vivo evaluation of longitudinal stent deformation during proximal optimisation
Toth GG et al
free
167.05

Expert review

10.4244/EIJ-D-21-00690 May 15, 2022
Crush techniques for percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions
Moroni F et al
free
151.03

State-of-the-Art

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00776 Apr 3, 2023
Computed tomographic angiography in coronary artery disease
Serruys PW et al
free
118

Translational research

10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00718 Jun 5, 2023
Preclinical evaluation of the degradation kinetics of third-generation resorbable magnesium scaffolds
Seguchi M et al
110.35

Viewpoint

10.4244/EIJ-E-22-00007 May 15, 2022
TAVI at 20: how a crazy idea led to a clinical revolution
Eltchaninoff H et al
free
X

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 6.2
2022 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2023)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2024 Europa Group - All rights reserved