Composite Primary End Points in Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials Involving Type 2 Diabetes Patients: Should Unstable Angina Be Included in the Primary End Point?

Nikolaus Marx, Darren K McGuire, Vlado Perkovic, Hans-Juergen Woerle, Uli C Broedl, Maximilian von Eynatten, Jyothis T George, Julio Rosenstock
Diabetes Care 2017, 40 (9): 1144-1151
Reductions in cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in recently reported trials, along with the recent approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of an additional indication for empagliflozin to reduce the risk of CV death in type 2 diabetes patients with evidence of CV disease, have renewed interest in CV outcome trials (CVOTs) of glucose-lowering drugs. Composite end points are a pragmatic necessity in CVOTs to ensure that sample size and duration of follow-up remain reasonable. Combining clinical outcomes into a composite end point increases the numbers of events ascertained and thus statistical power and precision. Historically, composite CV end points in diabetes trials have included a larger number of components, while more recent CVOTs almost exclusively use a composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and nonfatal stroke-the so-called three-point major adverse CV event (3P-MACE) composite-or add hospitalization for unstable angina (HUA) to these three outcomes (4P-MACE). The inclusion of HUA increases the number of events for analysis, but noteworthy disadvantages include clinical subjectivity in ascertainment of HUA and its lower prognostic relevance compared with CV death, MI, or stroke. Furthermore, results from recent CVOTs indicate that glucose-lowering agents seem to have minimal impact on HUA. Its inclusion therefore potentially favors a shift of the hazard ratio (HR) toward the null, which is especially problematic in trials designed to demonstrate noninferiority. The primary outcome of 3P-MACE may offer a better balance than 4P-MACE between statistical efficiency, operational complexity, the likelihood of diagnostic precision (and therefore clinical relevance) for each of the component outcomes, clinical importance, and the aim to adequately capture any potential treatment effect of the intervention. Nevertheless, as individual medications may mechanistically differ in their impact on CV outcomes, no particular individual or composite end point can be seen as a "gold standard" for CVOTs of all glucose-lowering drugs.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article


You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.


Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"