ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
Composite Endpoints in Contemporary Cardiovascular Trials: Trends in Phase 3 Trials and Key Issues in Regulatory Review.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interpreting composite endpoints in cardiovascular drug development is a key challenge, particularly when events of different clinical relevance are combined into a single primary outcome. Previous reviews noted that conventional composite endpoints may mask clinically meaningful differences at the individual component level and be mainly driven by less clinically important "soft" events, raising concerns about how overall treatment effects should be understood. Despite these concerns, information remains limited on how composite endpoints are used in current cardiovascular drug development programs and how their interpretation influences regulatory decision-making. Thus, we conducted a descriptive review of cardiovascular phase III trial publications and ClinicalTrials.gov registries (2015-2024) that specified a composite primary endpoint and identified 173 trials. Hard endpoints such as death remain common; however, the range of events included in composite endpoints has increased in recent years. The examination of regulatory evaluations of composite endpoints in new drug applications for cardiovascular diseases-including chronic heart failure, transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy, and cardiovascular conditions requiring antithrombotic therapy-in Japan, the United States, and the European Union revealed that regulatory agencies consistently raised concerns across regions regarding differences in clinical importance among components and the interpretability of composite results. These findings highlight the need to consider differences in clinical importance among components and carefully interpret the composite endpoint results in the context of individual component outcomes, both in trial design and evaluation.
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.