Choice of End Points in Heart Failure Trials
Sanjay Kaul
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46679
2024-11-29
JAMA Network Open
Abstract:Therapies for heart failure (HF) are typically approved on the basis of substantial evidence demonstrating that the drug improves how a patient "feels, functions or survives." 1 Interventions are often approved according to their favorable impact on mortality and morbidity, and some therapies have been approved exclusively on the basis of their impact on symptoms, functional capacity, or quality of life (mevacamten, ferric carboxymaltose, and Optimizer and Barostim devices, among others). The most common conventional end point in pivotal HF trials is a composite of death (cardiovascular [CV] or all-cause) or hospitalization (CV, HF, or all-cause). 1 Most contemporary trials use a composite of CV death or hospitalization for HF (HHF) as their primary end point and for power and sample size calculations. HHF is clinically relevant and the number one reason for health care resource utilization among patients with HF. The composite is used for its efficiency in amplifying event rates and constraining sample size. However, reducing mortality is not a requirement for approval of therapies for HF. The US Food and Drug Administration requires the sponsor to provide reasonable assurance that mortality is not increased. 1 Secondary analyses of some old 2 ,3 and recent 4 trials have sparked debate regarding the importance of HF-specific vs all-cause end points in HF trials. Post hoc analyses of CHARM-Preserved and TOPCAT trials demonstrated that non-CV hospitalization accounted for 40% to 50% of all hospitalizations, and hospitalization, irrespective of underlying cause, is associated with a heightened risk for postdischarge mortality. This is particularly relevant in clinical trials for HF with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF), where patients generally experience a higher proportion of hospitalizations owing to non-CV causes such as pulmonary, kidney, or diabetes-related comorbidity. Sayed et al 5 present the results of a trial-level meta-analysis of 113 HF trials conducted during the last 3 decades and published in 3 leading medical journals evaluating the association of HHF with all-cause hospitalization (ACH). The key findings in the current study are as follows. First, ACH was reported in approximately half the trials evaluated with no improvement across time. Second, less than half of ACHs were accounted for by HHF, reflecting the multimorbidity nature of HF with a higher HHF-to-ACH ratio in patients with severely symptomatic New York Heart Association class III to IV HF, HF with reduced ejection fraction, lower ejection fraction, or with nonpharmaceutical interventions. Third, treatment outcomes on HHF and ACH were well-correlated with trial-level R 2 (coefficient of determination) of 90.1% but with substantial uncertainty. 5 Of note, only 37 of 99 trials with available preregistered protocols prespecified ACH as an end point of interest, and 35 of 37 trials reported on it, thereby indicating the importance of prespecification. 5 These findings are likely going to add to the ongoing debate regarding the choice of HF-specific vs all-cause end points in HF trials. The finding that HHF typically accounts for half of ACH burden in HF trials is likely an overestimate because HF trials are often enriched with high-risk patients who experience higher-than-average event rates compared with the general population community setting, as pointed out by the authors. An interesting finding is the average treatment effect on ACH was approximately half that for HHF. For example, reductions of 25% and 50% in the odds of HHF would, on average, be expected to yield approximately 12.5% and approximately 25% reductions in the odds of ACH. 5 This has implications for sample size estimation. For example, assuming an HHF event rate of 20% in the control group, α of .05, and β of 0.1 (90% power), the estimated sample size for a trial to detect 25% reduction in odds with treatment would be 2424 participants. For the same therapeutic intervention and assuming an ACH event rate of 40% (accounting for HHF-to-ACH ratio of approximately 0.5), α of .05, and β of 0.1 (90% power), the estimated sample size for the trial to detect 12.5% reduction in odds with treatment (reflecting half the treatment effect on HHF) would be 3936 participants, a 62% increase in sample size. Bayesian predictive modeling that accounts for uncertainty in treatment estimates indicates an unrealistically large 3-fold greater reduction in the odds of HHF would be required to ensure a high probability of the treatment reducing ACH by 20% reduction in odds or greater amount—an effect size that is typically used for sample size estimation in HF trials. The example of 2 HF trials with empagliflozin is particularly instructive. In EMPEROR-Preserved, the magnitude of treatment effect on hosp -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal