ReviewTherapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease
Endpoint selection for noninferiority percutaneous coronary intervention trials: a methodological description.
Review in Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decrementally cost-effective health technologies in non-inferiority studies: A systematic review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this review is to provide a practical update on endpoint selection for noninferiority (NI) studies in percutaneous coronary intervention studies.
methodsA PubMed search was conducted for predefined terms to explore the use of NI designs and intrapatient comparisons to determine their current importance. Sample size calculations for the most frequently used endpoints with NI hypotheses were done to increase statistical awareness.
resultsReported NI trials, with the most frequently chosen clinical endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), had NI margins ranging from 1.66% to 5.00%, resulting in patient populations of 400-1500 per treatment group. Clinical study endpoints comprising of MACE complemented with rates of bleeding complications and stent thrombosis (ST) are suggested to conduct a statistically and clinically meaningful NI trial. Study designs with surrogate endpoints amenable to intrapatient randomizations, are a very attractive option to reduce the number of necessary patients by about half. Comparative clinical endpoint studies with MACE and ST/bleeding rates to study a shortened dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in coronary stent trials are feasible, whereas ST as the sole primary endpoint is not useful.
conclusionsExpanded composite clinical endpoints (MACE complemented by ST and bleeding rates and intrapatient randomization for selected surrogate endpoints) may be suitable tools to meet future needs in device approval, recertification and reimbursement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.