Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Randomized Clinical Trials: the Holy Grail
PRIMARY EFFICACY SUBGROUP RESULTS (mITT)
ASA
ASA + thienopyridine 0.86 (0.75 -0.98) 0.34 0.69 (0.45 -1.05)
STEMI NSTEMI UA
0.85 (0.70 - 1.03)
0.85 (0.68 - 1.06)
0.82 (0.62 - 1.07)
0.96
<65 Years
65 Years
0.83 (0.70 - 0.99)
0.84 (0.70 - 1.01)
0.94
Male
Female
0.87 (0.75 - 1.01)
0.77 (0.60 - 0.99)
0.40
Weight <60 kg
Weight 60 to <90 kg
Weight 90 kg
0.83 (0.56 - 1.25)
0.85 (0.72 - 0.99)
0.83 (0.64 - 1.08)
0.98
Prior MI
No Prior MI
0.83 (0.68 - 1.01)
0.85 (0.72 - 1.01)
0.80
0.5 0.8 1.25 2.0 1.0
Diabetes Mellitus
No Diabetes Mellitus
0.96 (0.77 - 1.20)
0.78 (0.67 - 0.92)
0.14
Creatinine Cl <50 mL /min
Creatinine Cl > 50 mL /min
0.88 (0.62 - 1.26)
0.84 (0.73 - 0.96)
0.82
0.57 (0.33 - 0.97) North America
South America Western Europe Eastern Europe
Asia Other
0.89 (0.59 - 1.34)
0.90 (0.59 - 1.37)
0.83 (0.69 - 1.00)
0.86 (0.63 - 1.17)
0.92 (0.60 - 1.39)
0.80
Overall 0.84 (0.74 0.96)
HR (95% CI) P interaction
Rivaroxaban Better Placebo Better
RCTs and subgroup analysis
Study CURE (3) CURRENT OASIS 7(1) TRITON TIMI (3)* PLATO (7) CAPRIE(3) CHARISMA(3) RE-LY (6) ROCKET AF(1) ARISTOTLE
…What it has been said about subgroup analysis
The answer to a RCT that does not confirm one’s beliefs is not the conduct of several subanalyses until one can see what one believes. Rather the answer is to re-examine one’s beliefs carefully. Subgroup analyses are particularly prone to over interpretation, and one is tempted to suggest ”don’t do it (or at least don’t believe it) for many trials, but this suggestion is probably contrary to human nature. Subgroup analysis is a machine for generating false negatives
“. . . some investigators selectively report
only the more interesting subgroup
analyses, thereby leaving the reader (and
us) unaware of how many less exciting
subgroup analyses were looked at and not
mentioned”. Disappointingly, most trials
reporting subgroup analyses noted a
subgroup difference that was highlighted in
the conclusions—so much for cautious
interpretation! Lancet 2000;355:1064
Subgroup analysis
Do we need them?
Usually small groups or excluded as Elderly, Women , PVD, Stroke CABG, CKD, Bleeding
When to believe a subgroup analysis
Large RCT How many subgroup analyses were performed?
◦ The larger the number, the larger the possibility of a spurious finding.
Is the Magnitude of the Subgroup Difference
Large? The larger the difference between the observed effects in particular subgroups,
the more plausible that the difference is real.
Is the Subgroup Difference Consistent Across
Studies? ◦ Consult meta-analyses and systematic reviews
Is it a post hoc or an ad hoc analysis?
◦ The credibility of any apparent subgroup difference that arises out
of post hoc rather than a priori hypotheses is questionable.
◦ Hypothesis-generating vs. hypothesis testing
Subgroup analysis after a borderline or negative RCTrial
CAPRIE: primary efficacy end-point.
Subgroup-analysis
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Aspirin better Clopidogrel better
Relative Risk Reduction (%)
Stroke (p/ys=12033)
AMI (p/ys 11630)
PAD (p/ys 11592)
All patients (p/ys=35155)
p=0,26
p=0,66
p=0,0028
p=0,043
CAPRIE Lancet 1996;348:1329–1339.
Population RR (95% CI) p value
Documented AT 0.88 (0.77, 0.998)
0.046
(n=12153)
Risk Factors Only 1.20 (0.91, 1.59) 0.20 (n=3284)
Overall Population* 0.93 (0.83, 1.05) 0.22 (n=15603)
Primary Efficacy Results (MI/Stroke/CV Death) by Pre-Specified Entry Category
* A statistical test for interaction showed marginally significant heterogeneity (p=0.045) in treatment response for the pre-specified subgroups of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients AT=Atherothrombosis
0.6 0.8 1.4 1.2 Clopidogrel + ASA Better
Placebo + ASA Better
1.6 0.4
Adapted from Bhatt DL, Fox KA, Hacke W, et al. NEJM 2006 – In press
Most subgroup findings tend to exaggerate reality. Be especially suspicious of investigators highlighting a subgroup treatment effect in a trial with no overall treatment effect. They are usually superfluous subgroup salvages of otherwise indeterminate (negative) trials
Subgroup analysis after a positive trial
DM
n:3146
n:4662
n: 7647
Diabetes Mellitus
Ticagrelor (solid lines) and
clopidogrel (dotted lines) groups in
patients with levels of HbA1c at
baseline above median of 6% (blue
lines) and below median of 6% (red
lines).
JJames S et al. Eur Heart J 2010;eurheartj.ehq325
major bleeding
CV death, MI, and stroke
Not all trials provide perfect consistency
Robert Doisneau, Paris 1948
Subgroup analyses are an important part of the analysis of a RCT. However, they are commonly overinterpreted and can lead to further research that is misguided or, worse, to suboptimal patient care. Consider a RCT designed to determine whether a new treatment is more effective than an established treatment and assessed with a test, based on all randomized patients, of the null hypothesis that the treatments have equal efficacy, as measured in terms of the primary end point. Then, subgroup analyses are conducted to assess whether different types of patients respond differently to the new treatment. This sounds simple enough, but there are several important sources of confusion and uncertainty regarding such subgroup analyses
Ευρήματα από ανάλυση υπο-ομάδων
• Βασική αρχή: Εάν υπάρχει μια (μέτρια) διαφορά
ανάμεσα σε δύο θεραπείες όσον αφορά κάποιο σύμβαμα,
τότε η διαφορά αυτή μπορεί να είναι μεγαλύτερη ή
μικρότερη σε διακριτές υπo-ομάδες ασθενών αλλά είναι
απίθανο να είναι αντίθετη
Προτεινόμενες συστάσεις
σχετικά με την ανάλυση υπο-ομάδων
• Περιορισμός αναλύσεων σε ΠΡΟ-καθορισμένες υπο-
ομάδες με γνώμονα κάποια λογική παθοφυσιολογική βάση
προηγούμενης έρευνας
• Ανάλυση μόνο εφόσον υπάρχει στατιστική σημαντικότητα
στο συνολικό αποτέλεσμα
• Διόρθωση τιμής p για πολλαπλές συγκρίσεις (0.05/n, πχ
εάν γίνουν 20 συγκρίσεις να απαιτείται p<0.05/20=0.0025)
• Να θεωρείται ότι τα ευρήματα απαιτούν περαιτέρω έρευνα
και ότι δεν είναι αποδεικτικά
• Να μην δίνεται υπερβολική σημασία
Medical research and patients are best served when subgroup analyses are well planed and appropriately analyzed and when conclusion and recommendations about clinical practice are guided by the strength of the evidence.
TRITON: Numerical reduction in CV death and significant
reduction in MI [5% (40% relative)] with prasugrel in DM pts
Relatively lower reduction in MI with ticagrelor in PLATO may
be explained by
◦ Higher average loading dose of clopidogrel in the clopidogrel arm
◦ Pre-treatment with clopidogrel in 50% pts in the ticagrelor arm
◦ TRITON results depend on early periprocedural MI, detection facilitated by
delay of subject enrolment until after CANG. PLATO enrolled pts soon after
the index event, making early MI detection more difficult. Thus, any
apparent difference in MI results between trials likely results from study
design rather than actual outcome.
PLATO diabetes…
High platelet reactivity in DM
◦ Higher dose of ticagrelor could have resulted in greater clinical benefit???
Predicted steady-state plasma exposure of ticagrelor and its active metabolite not
different in patients with or without DM (AZ internal data)
Very high levels of platelet inhibition may not be sufficient
for adequate protection against ischaemic events in
patients with DM.
◦ The prothrombotic condition that DM constitutes may require anti-thrombin or
other long-term anti-coagulation therapy for a more general prevention of CV
events...
PLATO diabetes…
ROCKET- AF trial- Rivaroxaban in AF Pts with Moderate Renal Impairment
• 14264 ασθενείς με ΚΜ με CHADS2 score ≥ 2 και μέτρια νεφρική δυσλειτουργία: rivaroxaban 20 mg/day or 15 mg/day if CrCl 30–49 mL/min or dose-adjusted warfarin (INR: 2.0– 3.0)
- Μεγαλύτερη συχνότητα μειζόνων και κλινικά σημαντικών αιμορραγιών σε ασθενείς με ΝΑ, ανεξάρτητα από το είδος της θεραπείας
- Παρόμοια συχνότητα αιμορραγιών με μειωμένη δοσολογία rivaroxaban και θεραπείας με warfarin
- Λιγότερες θανατηφόρες αιμορραγίες με rivaroxaban (0.28 vs. 0.74% per 100 p-y; P = 0.047)
Fox K, et al: Eur Heart J 2011; 32: 2387– 2394
Yusuf S, et al. NEJM 2001; 345: 494‐502
Overall
Diabetes
No Diabetes
12562 11.4 9.3
2840 9722 9.9 7.9
14.2 16.7
Aspirin effect on stroke in women
The Canadian Cooperative Study Group. NEJM 1978;299:53-59.
Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration. BMJ. 1994;308:81-106.
Is There External Evidence That Supports the Hypothesized Subgroup Difference? ◦ Does the subgroup effect make sense?
Different populations (including animal studies)
Similar interventions (drug-class effect)
Similar outcomes (surrogate outcomes)
15.9%
22.3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Ann
ual e
vent
rat
e %
Clopidogrel’s benefit over ASA is amplified in patients with a previous CABG
Bhatt et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;35(Suppl A):383 Bhatt, unpublished data
Overall benefit: p = 0.001; multivariate analysis
Stroke, MI, VD, hospitalization for ischemic events/bleeding Events prevented / 1000 patients per year over ASA
Clopidogrel
ASA
6
Symptomatic Cohort: Primary Outcome (MI/Stroke/CV Death)† by Entry Criteria*
†MI (fatal or non-fatal), stroke (fatal or non-fatal), or cardiovascular death *Patients may have met more than one inclusion criteria All patients received ASA 75-162 mg/day
Cerebrovascular (n=4320)
Placebo +ASA (9.6%)
RRR: 16.0% p=0.088
Clopidogrel + ASA (8.1%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Months since randomization 0 6 12 18 24 30
Coronary (n=5835)
Clopidogrel + ASA (6.5%)
Placebo + ASA (7.4%)
Prim
ary o
utc
om
e e
ven
t rate
(%
)
Months since randomization
RRR: 13.9% p=0.130
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 6 12 18 24 30
PAD (n=2838)
Placebo + ASA (8.7%)
Clopidogrel + ASA (7.6%)
RRR: 13.1% p=0.285
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Months since randomization
0 6 12 18 24 30
Bhatt DL. Presented ateeting - March 2006
CABG and P2Y12 Inhibitors seccation
Common group for subanalysis
Elderly - Women Diabetes mellitus Stroke (history or not)
PVD CABG CKD (patients with CKD were excluded from75%
of published CAD trials) Kidney Intern 2006