Are component endpoints equal? A preference study into the practice of composite endpoints in clinical trials

An Overview of Data Collection in Health Preference Research

This paper focuses on survey administration and data collection methods employed for stated-preference studies in health applications. First, it describes different types of survey administration methods, encompassing web-based surveys, face-to-face (in-person) surveys, and mail surveys. Second, the concept of sampling frames is introduced, clarifying distinctions between the target population and survey frame population. The discussion then extends to different types of sampling methods, such as probability and non-probability sampling, along with an evaluation of potential issues associated with different sampling methods within the context of health preference research. Third, the paper provides information about different recruitment methods, including web-surveys, leveraging patient groups, and in-clinic recruitment. Fourth, a crucial aspect addressed is the calculation of response rate, with insights into determining an adequate response rate and strategies to improve response rates in stated-preference surveys. Lastly, the paper concludes by discussing data management plans and suggesting insights for future research in this field. In summary, this paper examines the nuanced aspects of survey administration and data collection methods in stated-preference studies, offering valuable guidance for researchers and practitioners in the health domain.

A Best-Worst Scaling Study of the General Population's Preferences for Activities in Living Arrangements for Persons With Dementia

BACKGROUND

Activity involvement is a central element of dementia care. However, few studies have examined preferences for types of activities for persons who may be in need of care in the future. In this study, a best-worst scaling (BWS) was conducted to gather insights on preferred activities in small-scale living arrangements for dementia in the general population aged 50-65 years from rural and urban regions.

METHODS

BWS tasks were developed based on literature searches and focus groups. The final BWS contains ten activities, namely 'interaction with animals', 'gardening', 'painting, handicrafts, manual activities', 'household activities (e.g., folding laundry, cooking)', 'watching television', 'practicing religion', 'listening to music and singing familiar songs', 'conversations about the past', 'walks and excursions', 'sport activities (e.g., gymnastics)'. Each participant had to fill out subsets of four objects each and identify them as best and worst. A postal survey was sent to a total of 4390 persons from rural and urban regions aged between 50 and 65 years. Results were analyzed by count analysis and logit models. It was examined if preferences differ with respect to gender, religiousness, and informal caregiving experience.

RESULTS

A total of 840 questionnaires were returned, and 627 surveys were included in the analysis. In the rural sample, the highest relative importance (RI) was assigned to 'walks and excursions' (RI: 100%), 'sport activities (e.g., gymnastics)' (RI: 56%), 'gardening' (RI: 28%), and 'interaction with animals' (26%). In the urban sample, 'walks and excursions' (RI: 100%), 'sport activities (e.g., gymnastics)' (RI: 37%), 'interaction with animals' (25%) and 'gardening' (RI: 22%) were perceived as most important. In both groups, household activities and practicing religion were of lowest importance. Importance ranks differed between subgroups. Results of the logit models with random effects showed the same order as results from the count analyses.

DISCUSSION

Our findings show that respondents generally favored activities with an outdoor component, while the household activities that are part of many concepts were of low importance to respondents. Thus, our study can inform the design of a preference-based specific range of activities in small-scale living arrangements for dementia.

Matching the Outcomes to Treatment Targets of Exercise for Low Back Pain: Does it Make a Difference? Results of Secondary Analyses From Individual Patient Data of Randomised Controlled Trials and Pooling of Results Across Trials in Comparative Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether using a single matched or composite outcome might affect the results of previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing exercise for non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). The first objective was to explore whether a single matched outcome generated greater standardized mean differences (SMDs) when compared with the original unmatched primary outcome SMD. The second objective was to explore whether a composite measure, composed of matched outcomes, generated a greater SMD when compared with the original primary outcome SMD.

DESIGN

We conducted exploratory secondary analyses of data.

SETTING

Seven RCTs were included, of which 2 were based in the USA (University research clinic, Veterans Affairs medical center) and the UK (primary care clinics, nonmedical centers). One each were based in Norway (clinics), Brazil (primary care), and Japan (outpatient clinics).

PARTICIPANTS

The first analysis comprised 1) 5 RCTs (n=1033) that used an unmatched primary outcome but included (some) matched outcomes as secondary outcomes, and the second analysis comprised 2) 4 RCTs (n=864) that included multiple matched outcomes by developing composite outcomes (N=1897).

INTERVENTION

Exercise compared with no exercise.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The composite consisted of standardized averaged matched outcomes. All analyses replicated the RCTs' primary outcome analyses.

RESULTS

Of 5 RCTs, 3 had greater SMDs with matched outcomes (pooled effect SMD 0.30 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.04, 0.56], P=.02) compared with an unmatched primary outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.19 [95% CI -0.03, 0.40] P=.09). Of 4 composite outcome analyses, 3 RCTs had greater SMDs in the composite outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.28 [95% CI 0.05, 0.51] P=.02) compared with the primary outcome (pooled effect SMD 0.24 [95% CI -0.04, 0.53] P=.10).

CONCLUSIONS

These exploratory analyses suggest that using an outcome matched to exercise treatment targets in NSLBP RCTs may produce greater SMDs than an unmatched primary outcome. Composite outcomes could offer a meaningful way of investigating superiority of exercise than single domain outcomes.

Improving Visualization Methods of Utility-Weighted Disability Outcomes for Stroke Trials

Background

The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) is the most common endpoint in acute stroke trials, but its power is limited when analyzed dichotomously and its indication of effect size is challenging to interpret when analyzed ordinally. To address these issues, the utility-weighted-mRS (UW-mRS) has been developed as a patient-centered, linear scale. However, appropriate data visualizations of UW-mRS results are needed, as current stacked bar chart displays do not convey crucial utility-weighting information.

Design/Methods

Two UW-mRS display formats were devised: (1) Utility Staircase charts, and (2) choropleth-stacked-bar-charts (CSBCs). In Utility Staircase displays, mRS segment height reflects the utility value of each mRS level. In CSBCs, mRS segment color intensity reflects the utility of each mRS level. Utility Staircase and CSBC figures were generated for 15 randomized comparisons of acute ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke therapies, including fibrinolysis, endovascular reperfusion, blood pressure moderation, and hemicraniectomy. Display accuracy in showing utility outcomes was assessed with the Tufte-lie-factor and ease-of-use assessed by formal ratings completed by a panel of 4 neurologists and emergency physicians and one nurse-coordinator.

Results

The Utility Staircase and CSBC displays rapidly conveyed patient-centered valuation of trial outcome distributions not available in conventional ordinal stacked bar charts. Tufte-lie-factor (LF) scores indicated “substantial distortion” of utility-valued outcomes for 93% (14/15) of conventional stacked bar charts, vs. “no distortion” for all Utility Staircase and CSBC displays. Clinician ratings on the Figural Display Questionnaire indicated that utility information encoded in row height (Utility Staircase display) was more readily assimilated than that conveyed in segment hue intensity (CSBC), both superior to conventional stacked bar charts.

Conclusions

Utility Staircase displays are an efficient graphical format for conveying utility weighted–modified Rankin Scale primary endpoint results of acute stroke trials, and choropleth-stacked-bar-charts a good alternative. Both are more accurate in depicting quantitative, health-related quality of life results and preferred by clinician users for utility results visualization, compared with conventional stacked bar charts.

Critical review of multimorbidity outcome measures suitable for low-income and middle-income country settings: perspectives from the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) researchers

OBJECTIVES

There is growing recognition around the importance of multimorbidity in low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, and specifically the need for pragmatic intervention studies to reduce the risk of developing multimorbidity, and of mitigating the complications and progression of multimorbidity in LMICs. One of many challenges in completing such research has been the selection of appropriate outcomes measures. A 2018 Delphi exercise to develop a core-outcome set for multimorbidity research did not specifically address the challenges of multimorbidity in LMICs where the global burden is greatest, patterns of disease often differ and health systems are frequently fragmented. We, therefore, aimed to summarise and critically review outcome measures suitable for studies investigating mitigation of multimorbidity in LMIC settings.

SETTING

LMIC.

PARTICIPANTS

People with multimorbidity.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Identification of all outcome measures.

RESULTS

We present a critical review of outcome measures across eight domains: mortality, quality of life, function, health economics, healthcare access and utilisation, treatment burden, measures of 'Healthy Living' and self-efficacy and social functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies in multimorbidity are necessarily diverse and thus different outcome measures will be appropriate for different study designs. Presenting the diversity of outcome measures across domains should provide a useful summary for researchers, encourage the use of multiple domains in multimorbidity research, and provoke debate and progress in the field.

Improving Cardiovascular Drug and Device Development and Evidence Through Patient-Centered Research and Clinical Trials

The pipeline of new cardiovascular drugs is relatively limited compared with many other clinical areas. Challenges causing lagging drug innovation include the duration and expense of cardiovascular clinical trials needed for regulatory evaluation and approvals, which generally must demonstrate noninferiority to existing standards of care and measure longer-term outcomes. By comparison, there has been substantial progress in cardiovascular device innovation. There has also been progress in cardiovascular trial participation equity in recent years, especially among women, due in part to important efforts by Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, American Heart Association, and others. Yet women and especially racial and ethnic minority populations remain underrepresented in cardiovascular trials, indicating much work ahead to continue recent success. Given these challenges and opportunities, the multistakeholder Partnering with Regulators Learning Collaborative of the Value in Healthcare Initiative, a collaboration of the American Heart Association and the Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University, identified how to improve the evidence generation process for cardiovascular drugs and devices. Drawing on a series of meetings, literature reviews, and analyses of regulatory options, the Collaborative makes recommendations across four identified areas for improvement. First, we offer strategies to enhance patient engagement in trial design, convenient participation, and meaningful end points and outcomes to improve patient recruitment and retention (major expenses in clinical trials). Second, new digital technologies expand the potential for real-world evidence to streamline data collection and reduce cost and time of trials. However, technical challenges must be overcome to routinely leverage real-world data, including standardizing data, managing data quality, understanding data comparability, and ensuring real-world evidence does not worsen inequities. Third, as trials are driven by evidence needs of regulators and payers, we recommend ways to improve their collaboration in trial design to streamline and standardize efficient and innovative trials, reducing costs and delays. Finally, we discuss creative ways to expand the minuscule proportion of sites involved in cardiovascular evidence generation and medical product development. These actions, paired with continued policy research into better ways to pay for and equitably develop therapies, will help reduce the cost and complexity of drug and device research, development, and trials.

A patient-centered composite endpoint weighting technique for orthopaedic trauma research

Background

This study aimed to address the current limitations of the use of composite endpoints in orthopaedic trauma research by quantifying the relative importance of clinical outcomes common to orthopaedic trauma patients and use those values to develop a patient-centered composite endpoint weighting technique.

Methods

A Best-Worst Scaling choice experiment was administered to 396 adult surgically-treated fracture patients. Respondents were presented with ten choice sets, each consisting of three out of ten plausible clinical outcomes. Hierarchical Bayesian modeling was used to determine the utilities associated with the outcomes.

Results

Death was the outcome of greatest importance (mean utility = − 8.91), followed by above knee amputation (− 7.66), below knee amputation (− 6.97), severe pain (− 5.90), deep surgical site infection (SSI) (− 5.69), bone healing complications (− 5.20), and moderate pain (− 4.59). Mild pain (− 3.30) and superficial SSI (− 3.29), on the other hand, were the outcomes of least importance to respondents.

Conclusion

This study revealed that patients’ relative importance towards clinical outcomes followed a logical gradient, with distinct and quantifiable preferences for each possible component outcome. These findings were incorporated into a novel composite endpoint weighting technique.

Are component endpoints equal? A preference study into the practice of composite endpoints in clinical trials

Objectives

To examine patients’ perspectives regarding composite endpoints and the utility patients put on possible adverse outcomes of revascularization procedures.

Design

In the PRECORE study, a stated preference elicitation method Best‐Worst Scaling (BWS) was used to determine patient preference for 8 component endpoints (CEs): need for redo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 1 year, minor stroke with symptoms <24 hours, minor myocardial infarction (MI) with symptoms <3 months, recurrent angina pectoris, need for redo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) within 1 year, major MI causing permanent disability, major stroke causing permanent disability and death within 24 hours.

Setting

A tertiary PCI/CABG centre.

Participants

One hundred and sixty patients with coronary artery disease who underwent PCI or CABG.

Main outcome measures

Importance weights (IWs).

Results

Patients considered need for redo PCI within 1 year (IW: 0.008), minor stroke with symptoms <24 hours (IW: 0.017), minor MI with symptoms <3 months (IW: 0.027), need for redo CABG within 1 year (IW: 0.119), recurrent angina pectoris (IW: 0.300) and major MI causing permanent disability (IW: 0.726) less severe than death within 24 hours (IW: 1.000). Major stroke causing permanent disability was considered worse than death within 24 hours (IW: 1.209). Ranking of CEs and the relative values attributed to the CEs differed among subgroups based on gender, age and educational level.

Conclusion

Patients attribute different weight to individual CEs. This has significant implications for the interpretation of clinical trial data.