Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Outlineofdiscussion
Introduction Choosingendpoints Objectiveandsubjectiveendpoints Primaryandsecondaryendpoints HardVssurrogateendpoints Developinganendpoint Compositeendpoint
Anendpoint
Terminationofalinesegment
Theendpointmustbeclinicallyrelevant Physicianand/orpatient
Howthepatientfeels,functionsorsurvives
Payer(thirdparty/govt)
ReductioninICUstay
Influencethedecisionbybothtochoosea particulartreatment
Howdowechooseendpoints? Dependingonthekindofstudy
Drugtrials
Phase1:safetystudy Phase2/3:efficacystudiesfortheindication
Pharmacoecomics
Resourcesavailableforthestudy
Money Facilities Time
Therecanbemanyendpointsinclinicaltrials
Hypertension Bloodpressure Stroke Osteoporosis Bonemineraldensity Nooffractures Qualityofthebone Newsurgicaltechniqueforhernia Timetakenforthesurgery Rateofpostoperativecomplications Recurrenceofthehernia
Somekeyfeaturesofendpoints
Easytodiagnose
Easytoidentify;nojudgmentrequired(deadoralive; recurrenceofhernia)
Minimalerrorinmeasurement
Reliablewhenmeasuredrepeatedly(bloodpressure; FEV1,notinspiratorycapacity)
Internalvalidity
Directlylinkedtothepropertyofinterest(stroke)
Externalvalidity
Applicabletothepopulation(bloodpressure)
Objectiveandsubjectiveendpoints
Objective
BP,HR,cholesterol reproducible,andreliable Notexpensive Easilyavailable
Subjective
Painscores Qualityoflife(HRQoL)
Primaryandsecondaryendpoints
Primaryendpoint
Usedforrejectionofthenullhypothesis Dictatesthesamplesizeforthestudy thekeyendpointinthestudyneededfordrug approvale.g inaCOPDstudyitisusuallyFEV1 (oftentoldbytheregulators)
Secondaryendpoints
Otherendpointsofinterestandrelevancee.g. symptomsandqualityoflife
Hard(Direct)Vs Surrogateendpoints
Study
Hypertension Osteoporosis
Hardendpoints
Stroke,Myocardial infarction. Occurrenceof fracture
Surrogateend points
Bloodpressure Bonemineral density Nerveconduction velocity HADRS, CGI CD4count/viral load
Whendoweusesurrogateendpoints?
Fasterandeasiertostudy Cheaper Loweventrates Mustlieinthepathwaybetweenthedrugand thedisease
Keypointaboutsurrogate
TIME
DRUG Disease
Surrogateendpoint Trueclinical outcome
Keypointaboutsurrogate
TIME
DRUG Disease
Surrogateendpoint Trueclinical outcome
ThecaseofOsteoporosis
Fracture
Biochemical markers
Only10% 44% of fractures occurred in patients with T score< 2.5. Proportion of fractures attributable to DEXA defined osteoporosis is modest
Calcif Tissue Int 2006; 78: 257270
Thecaseofchronicliverdisease
Ascites ALT,AST Liver biopsy Fibroscan
HardVssurrogate
Cash
Cheque Whatifitbounces?
Glycosylated Hb
IncreasedCVmortality
CombinationTherapyinBPH Developinganewendpoint:TheMTOPSstudy
Alpha blockade
5reductase inhibition
RationaleforCombinationTherapy
5ARIs
Arrestdisease progression
Alpha1adrenergic blockers
Rapidlyrelieve symptoms
Combinationtherapy:arrestdiseaseprogression andrapidlyrelievesymptoms?
MedicalTreatmentOfProstateSymptoms PrimaryResearchQuestion
Todetermineifmedicaltherapypreventsor delaystheclinicalprogressionofBPHasdefined byoneofthefollowing:
Acuteurinaryretention(AUR) RenalinsufficiencyduetoBPH(>50%riseinbaseline serumcreatinine&>1.5mg/dl) RecurrentUTIorurosepsis Incontinence(sociallyunacceptable) 4 PointRiseinBaselineAUASymptomScore confirmedwithin2 4weeks
StudyDesign:Overview
Doubleblind,placebocontrolled,multicenter,randomized Averagefollowup:4.5years
Randomized
N=3047
EntryCriteria
Doxazosin (n=756)
Finasteride (n=768)
Placebo (n=737)
CumulativeIncidenceofBPHProgression
25 p<0.0001;df =3 20
PercentwithEvent
15
10
0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
YearsfromRandomization
Placebo Doxazosin Finasteride Combination
Compositeendpoint
Usedmoreoftennowadays Loweventrates Cardiovasculartrials
Death Myocardialinfarction HospitaladmissionduetoCVdisease
Assumethattheeffectsoneacheventis similar
Hopestudy(N=9297)
Endpoint CVdeath MI Stroke Ramipril (%) 8.1 12.3 4.9 Placebo(%) 6.1 9.9 3.4 Riskreduction 26%,2% 20%,2.4% 34%, 1.5%
NEnglJMed2000;342:145153
Casestudyof76yearoldman
Anginadespitebetablockers,CCB,nitrates,aspirin andstatin Invasivemanagement;reluctant Howdoesonediscusswiththepatient? TIMEstudy(>75years);OptimalmedicaltherapyVs invasivetherapy Compositeendpointofdeath,nonfatalMI,ACS admissions
25%Vs64%
Letsseeindetail
Endpoint Composite Death Nonfatal MI Admission forACS Invasive 25% 17 12.3 4.9 Medical 64% 6.1 9.9 3.4 Riskreduction 0.31(0.723.16) 1.51(0.723.16) 0.75(0.361.55) 0.19(0.120.3)
Coprimaryendpoints
Atleast2 Bothmustshowsignificance E.g.Multiplesclerosis
Relapserateat1year Disabilityat2years
Conclusions Endpoints
Criticalandchallengingstudydesigndecision Consider
Phaseofdevelopment Diseaseunderstudy Characteristicsofmeasure Questiontobeansweredbytrial
PatientPopulation
PHASE4STUDIES
PatientPopulation
SuitablePatients whohavebeentakingthenewdrugortreatmentundersupervision PhaseIVclinicaltrialsmoreintensiveandspecified,theyoftentest thedrugseffectonspecificdemographics pregnantwomenor peoplewhoarecurrentlytakingothermedicationtoseeifthereis areactionbetweenthetwodrugs geriatricpopulation newmarketsforcompetitiveanalysisonthedrugortreatment costeffectivenessofadrugtherapyrelativetoothertraditionaland newtherapies
PatientPopulation
Children patientswithspecificdiseasecharacteristics, suchasliver(hepatic)impairmentorkidney (renal)impairment, patientswithspecificreactionstotreatment, suchaschangeinQTinterval(heartrate measurement).