Prioritised endpoints for device-based hypertension trials: the win ratio methodology

Efficacy and safety of sympathetic mapping and ablation of renal nerves for the treatment of hypertension (SMART): 6-month follow-up of a randomised, controlled trial

Background

Previous trials of renal denervation (RDN) have been designed to investigate reduction of blood pressure (BP) as the primary efficacy endpoint using non-selective RDN without intraoperatively verified RDN success. It is an unmet clinical need to map renal nerves, selectively denervate renal sympathetic nerves, provide readouts for the interventionalists and avoid futile RDN. We aimed to examine the safety and efficacy of renal nerve mapping/selective renal denervation (msRDN) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension (HTN) and determine whether antihypertensive drug burden is reduced while office systolic BP (OSBP) is controlled to target level (＜140 mmHg).

Methods

We conducted a randomized, prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, sham-controlled trial. The study combined two efficacy endpoints at 6 months as primary outcomes: The control rate of patients with OSBP ＜140 mmHg (non-inferior outcome) and change in the composite index of antihypertensive drugs (Drug Index) in the treatment versus Sham group (superior outcome). This design avoids confounding from excess drug-taking in the Sham group. Antihypertensive drug burden was assessed by a composite index constructed as: Class N (number of classes of antihypertensive drugs) × (sum of doses). 15 hospitals in China participated in the study and 220 patients were enrolled in a 1:1 ratio (msRDN vs Sham). The key inclusion criteria included: age (18-65 years old), history of essential HTN (at least 6 months), heart rate (≥70 bpm), OSBP (≥150 mmHg and ≤180 mmHg), ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM, 24-h SBP ≥130 mmHg or daytime SBP ≥135 mmHg or nighttime SBP ≥120 mmHg), renal artery stenosis (＜50%) and renal function (eGFR ＞45 mL/min/1.73 m2). The catheter with both stimulation and ablation functions was inserted in the distal renal main artery. The RDN site (hot spot) was selected if SBP increased (≥5 mmHg) by intra-renal artery (RA) electrical stimulation; an adequate RDN was confirmed by repeated electronic stimulation if no increase in BP otherwise, a 2nd ablation was performed at the same site. At sites where there was decreased SBP (≥5 mmHg, cold spot) or no BP response (neutral spot) to stimulation, no ablation was performed. The mapping, ablation and confirmation procedure was repeated until the entire renal main artery had been tested then either treated or avoided. After msRDN, patients had to follow a predefined, vigorous drug titration regimen in order to achieve target OSBP (＜140 mmHg). Drug adherence was monitored by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry analysis using urine. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02761811) and 5-year follow-up is ongoing.

Findings

Between July 8, 2016 and February 23, 2022, 611 patients were consented, 220 patients were enrolled in the study who received standardized antihypertensive drug treatments (at least two drugs) for at least 28 days, presented OSBP ≥150 mmHg and ≤180 mmHg and met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. In left RA and right RA, mapped sites were 8.2 (3.0) and 8.0 (2.7), hot/ablated sites were 3.7 (1.4) and 4.0 (1.6), cold spots were 2.4 (2.6) and 2.0 (2.2), neutral spots were 2.0 (2.1) and 2.0 (2.1), respectively. Hot, cold and neutral spots was 48.0%, 27.5% and 24.4% of total mapped sites, respectively. At 6 M, the Control Rate of OSBP was comparable between msRDN and Sham group (95.4% vs 92.8%, p = 0.429), achieved non-inferiority margin -10% (2.69%; 95% CI -4.11%, 9.83%, p ＜ 0.001 for non-inferiority); the change in Drug Index was significantly lower in msRDN group compared to Sham group (4.37 (6.65) vs 7.61 (10.31), p = 0.010) and superior to Sham group (-3.25; 95% CI -5.56, -0.94, p = 0.003), indicating msRDN patients need significantly fewer drugs to control OSBP ＜140 mmHg. 24-hour ambulatory SBP decreased from 146.8 (13.9) mmHg by 10.8 (14.1) mmHg, and from 149.8 (12.8) mmHg by 10.0 (14.0) mmHg in msRDN and Sham groups, respectively (p < 0.001 from Baseline; p > 0.05 between groups). Safety profiles were comparable between msRDN and Sham groups, demonstrating the safety and efficacy of renal mapping/selective RDN to treat uncontrolled HTN.

Interpretation

The msRDN therapy achieved the goals of reducing the drug burden of HTN patients and controlling OSBP <140 mmHg, with only approximately four targeted ablations per renal main artery, much lower than in previous trials.

Funding

SyMap Medical (Suzhou), LTD, Suzhou, China.

Effect of Accessory Renal Arteries on Essential Hypertension and Related Mechanisms

BACKGROUND

This case-control study aimed to determine whether there were differences between patients with essential hypertension with accessory renal arteries (ARAs) and those without ARAs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The enrolled patients with essential hypertension were divided into the ARA group (n=200) and control group without ARAs (n=238). After propensity matching, 394 patients (197 in each of the 2 groups), were included. The 24-hour BP (4.33/2.43 mm Hg) and daytime BP (4.48/2.61 mm Hg) of patients in the ARA group were significantly higher than those of the control group (P<0.05). The flow-mediated dilation was lower in the ARA group (5.98±2.70 versus 5.18±2.66; P<0.05). In correlation analysis, the horizontal plasma aldosterone concentration had the highest correlation with 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime systolic BP (r=0.263, 0.247, and 0.243, respectively; P<0.05) and diastolic BP (r=0.325, 0.298, and 0.317, respectively; P<0.05). As for multivariate regression analysis, plasma aldosterone concentration was a significant risk factor for elevated 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime systolic BP (β=0.249 [95% CI, 0.150-0.349], 0.228 [95% CI, 0.128-0.329], and 0.282 [95% CI, 0.187-0.377], respectively; P<0.05) and elevated diastolic BP (β=0.289 [95% CI, 0.192-0.385], 0.256 [95% CI, 0.158-0.353], and 0.335 [95% CI, 0.243-0.427], respectively; P<0.05). Direct renin concentration was also a risk factor for 24-hour and daytime BPs, whereas heart rate was a risk factor correlated with 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime diastolic BP (all P<0.05). For the mixed-effects model for repeated measures, the results were similar to results of the multivariate regression analysis (all P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

ARAs could contribute a higher BP of patients with essential hypertension and might promote the development of essential hypertension. The mechanism might be related to overactivation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and sympathetic nervous system.

Dissecting the restricted mean time in favor of treatment

The restricted mean time in favor (RMT-IF) summarizes the treatment effect on a hierarchical composite endpoint with mortality at the top. Its crude decomposition into "stage-wise effects," i.e., the net average time gained by the treatment prior to each component event, does not reveal the patient state in which the extra time is spent. To obtain this information, we break each stage-wise effect into subcomponents according to the specific state to which the reference condition is improved. After re-expressing the subcomponents as functionals of the marginal survival functions of outcome events, we estimate them conveniently by plugging in the Kaplan -- Meier estimators. Their robust variance matrices allow us to construct joint tests on the decomposed units, which are particularly powerful against component-wise differential treatment effects. By reanalyzing a cancer trial and a cardiovascular trial, we acquire new insights into the quality and composition of the extra survival times, as well as the extra time with fewer hospitalizations, gained by the treatment in question. The proposed methods are implemented in the rmt package freely available on the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN).

Safety and Efficacy of Renal Denervation in Patients Taking Antihypertensive Medications

BACKGROUND

Renal denervation (RDN) reduces blood pressure (BP) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension in the absence of antihypertensive medications.

OBJECTIVES

This trial assessed the safety and efficacy of RDN in the presence of antihypertensive medications.

METHODS

SPYRAL HTN-ON MED is a prospective, randomized, sham-controlled, patient- and assessor-blinded trial enrolling patients from 56 clinical centers worldwide. Patients were prescribed 1 to 3 antihypertensive medications. Patients were randomized to radiofrequency RDN or sham control procedure. The primary efficacy endpoint was the baseline-adjusted change in mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP at 6 months between groups using a Bayesian trial design and analysis.

RESULTS

The treatment difference in the mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP from baseline to 6 months between the RDN group (n = 206; -6.5 ± 10.7 mm Hg) and sham control group (n = 131; -4.5 ± 10.3 mm Hg) was -1.9 mm Hg (95% CI: -4.4 to 0.5 mm Hg; P = 0.12). There was no significant difference between groups in the primary efficacy analysis with a posterior probability of superiority of 0.51 (Bayesian treatment difference: -0.03 mm Hg [95% CI: -2.82 to 2.77 mm Hg]). However, there were changes and increases in medication intensity among sham control patients. RDN was associated with a reduction in office systolic BP compared with sham control at 6 months (adjusted treatment difference: -4.9 mm Hg; P = 0.0015). Night-time BP reductions and win ratio analysis also favored RDN. There was 1 adverse safety event among 253 assessed patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference between groups in the primary analysis. However, multiple secondary endpoint analyses favored RDN over sham control. (SPYRAL HTN-ON MED Study [Global Clinical Study of Renal Denervation With the Symplicity Spyral Multi-electrode Renal Denervation System in Patients With Uncontrolled Hypertension in the Absence of Antihypertensive Medications]; NCT02439775).

Generalized Pairwise Comparisons to Assess Treatment Effects: JACC Review Topic of the Week

A time-to-first-event composite endpoint analysis has well-known shortcomings in evaluating a treatment effect in cardiovascular clinical trials. It does not fully describe the clinical benefit of therapy because the severity of the events, events repeated over time, and clinically relevant nonsurvival outcomes cannot be considered. The generalized pairwise comparisons (GPC) method adds flexibility in defining the primary endpoint by including any number and type of outcomes that best capture the clinical benefit of a therapy as compared with standard of care. Clinically important outcomes, including bleeding severity, number of interventions, and quality of life, can easily be integrated in a single analysis. The treatment effect in GPC can be expressed by the net treatment benefit, the success odds, or the win ratio. This review provides guidance on the use of GPC and the choice of treatment effect measures for the analysis and reporting of cardiovascular trials.

A win ratio approach for comparing crossing survival curves in clinical trials

Many clinical trials include time-to-event or survival data as an outcome. To compare two survival distributions, the log-rank test is often used to produce a P-value for a statistical test of the null hypothesis that the two survival curves are identical. However, such a P-value does not provide the magnitude of the difference between the curves regarding the treatment effect. As a result, the P-value is often accompanied by an estimate of the hazard ratio from the proportional hazards model or Cox model as a measurement of treatment difference. However, one of the most important assumptions for Cox model is that the hazard functions for the two treatment groups are proportional. When the hazard curves cross, the Cox model could lead to misleading results and the log-rank test could also perform poorly. To address the problem of crossing curves in survival analysis, we propose the use of the win ratio method put forward by Pocock et al. as an estimand for analysing such data. The subjects in the test and control treatment groups are formed into all possible pairs. For each pair, the test treatment subject is labelled a winner or a loser if it is known who had the event of interest such as death. The win ratio is the total number of winners divided by the total number of losers and its standard error can be estimated using Bebu and Lachin method. Using real trial datasets and Monte Carlo simulations, this study investigates the power and type I error and compares the win ratio method with the log-rank test and Cox model under various scenarios of crossing survival curves with different censoring rates and distribution parameters. The results show that the win ratio method has similar power as the log-rank test and Cox model to detect the treatment difference when the assumption of proportional hazards holds true, and that the win ratio method outperforms log-rank test and Cox model in terms of power to detect the treatment difference when the survival curves cross.

Rationale and Design of Sympathetic Mapping/Ablation of Renal Nerves Trial (SMART) for the Treatment of Hypertension: a Prospective, Multicenter, Single-Blind, Randomized and Sham Procedure-Controlled Study

Renal denervation (RDN) is proposed as a durable and patient compliance independent treatment for hypertension. However, 20-30% non-responder after RDN treatment weakened the therapeutic effect, which may be due to blind ablation. The renal nerve mapping/selective ablation system developed by SyMap Medical Ltd (Suzhou), China, has the function of mapping renal sympathetic/parasympathetic nerve sites and selectively removing renal sympathetic nerves and is expected to meet the urgent unmet clinical need of targeted RDN. The "Sympathetic Mapping/Ablation of Renal Nerves Trial" (SMART) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, single-blinded, sham procedure-controlled trial, to evaluate the safety and efficacy of targeted renal sympathetic denervation in patients with essential and uncontrolled hypertension. The study is the first clinical registry trial using a targeted RDN for the treatment of uncontrolled hypertension; the dual-endpoint design can answer the question of how many antihypertensive drugs can be reduced in patients after RDN. The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov NCT02761811.

Patient Preferences for Pharmaceutical and Device-Based Treatments for Uncontrolled Hypertension: Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

Discrete choice experiment is a survey method used to understand how individuals make decisions and to quantify the relative importance of features. Using discrete choice experiment methods, we quantified patient benefit-risk preferences for hypertension treatments, including pharmaceutical and interventional treatments, like renal denervation.

METHODS

Respondents from the United States with physician-confirmed uncontrolled hypertension selected between treatments involving a procedure or pills, using a structured survey. Treatment features included interventional, noninterventional, or no hypertension treatment; number of daily blood pressure (BP) pills; expected reduction in office systolic BP; duration of effect; and risks of drug side effects, access site pain, or vascular injury. The results of a random-parameters logit model were used to estimate the importance of each treatment attribute.

RESULTS

Among 400 patients completing the survey between 2020 and 2021, demographics included: 52% women, mean age 59.2±13.0 years, systolic BP 155.1±12.3 mm Hg, and 1.8±0.9 prescribed antihypertensive medications. Reduction in office systolic BP was the most important treatment attribute. The remaining attributes, in decreasing order, were duration of effect, whether treatment was interventional, number of daily pills, risk of vascular injury, and risk of drug side effects. Risk of access site pain did not influence choice. In general, respondents preferred noninterventional over interventional treatments, yet only a 2.3 mm Hg reduction in office systolic BP was required to offset this preference. Small reductions in office systolic BP would offset risks of vascular injury or drug side effects. At least a 20% risk of vascular injury or drug side effects would be tolerated in exchange for improved BP.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduction in systolic BP was identified as the most important driver of patient treatment preference, while treatment-related risks had less influence. The results indicate that respondents would accept interventional treatments in exchange for modest reductions in systolic BP compared with those observed in renal denervation trials.

2022 Malaysian Working Group Consensus Statement on Renal Denervation for management of arterial hypertension

Hypertension is highly prevalent and a major contributor to cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. In spite of the availability of efficacious, safe and affordable anti-hypertensive drugs, hypertension remains poorly controlled in the majority of hypertensive patients. Various reasons including non-adherence to the anti-hypertensive drugs, account for the poor control. Resistant hypertension is also one of the reasons for poor control of blood pressure (BP). The sympathetic nervous system (SNS) has long been recognized as one of the determinants in the pathophysiology of a raised BP. Overactivity of the SNS is a contributor to sustained arterial hypertension. Renal denervation (RDN) is increasingly recognized as a safe and effective adjunctive therapy to control BP with or without pharmacotherapy. Hence for patients who remain uncontrolled despite all efforts, renal denervation (RDN) is a novel treatment that can potentially improve BP control, hence reducing the major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). More recent randomized, sham control trials of RDN have shown that RDN produces a sustained lowering of BP. To date, this lowering of BP through RDN is maintained for at least 3 years. Furthermore, this procedure has been found to be safe. Hence this consensus summarises the science behind RDN and the available clinical data to support the use of this therapy. It is hoped that this consensus will offer guidance on the importance of identifying patients who will benefit most from this therapy. A multidisciplinary team approach in the management of the patient undergoing RDN is recommended.

Clinical Trial Design Principles and Outcomes Definitions for Device-Based Therapies for Hypertension: A Consensus Document From the Hypertension Academic Research Consortium

The clinical implications of hypertension in addition to a high prevalence of both uncontrolled blood pressure and medication nonadherence promote interest in developing device-based approaches to hypertension treatment. The expansion of device-based therapies and ongoing clinical trials underscores the need for consistency in trial design, conduct, and definitions of clinical study elements to permit trial comparability and data poolability. Standardizing methods of blood pressure assessment, effectiveness measures beyond blood pressure alone, and safety outcomes are paramount. The Hypertension Academic Research Consortium (HARC) document represents an integration of evolving evidence and consensus opinion among leading experts in cardiovascular medicine and hypertension research with regulatory perspectives on clinical trial design and methodology. The HARC document integrates the collective information among device-based therapies for hypertension to better address existing challenges and identify unmet needs for technologies proposed to treat the world’s leading cause of death and disability. Consistent with the Academic Research Consortium charter, this document proposes pragmatic consensus clinical design principles and outcomes definitions for studies aimed at evaluating device-based hypertension therapies.

Catheter-Based Renal Denervation Therapy: Evolution of Evidence and Future Directions

Motivated by the persistence of uncontrolled blood pressure and its public health impact, the development and evaluation of device-based therapies for hypertension has advanced at an accelerated pace to complement pharmaceutical and lifestyle intervention strategies. Countering widespread interest from early studies, the lack of demonstrable efficacy for renal denervation (RDN) in a large, sham-controlled randomized trial motivated revision of trial design and conduct to account for confounding variables of procedural technique, medication variability, and selection of both patients and end points. Now amidst varied trial design and methods, several sham-controlled, randomized trials have demonstrated clinically meaningful reductions in blood pressure with RDN. With this momentum, additional studies are underway to position RDN as a potential part of standard therapy for the world's leading cause of death and disability. In parallel, further studies will address unresolved issues including durability of blood pressure lowering and reduction in antihypertensive medications, late-term safety, and impact on clinical outcomes. Identifying predictors of treatment effect and surveys of patient-reported outcomes and treatment preferences are also evolving areas of investigation. Aside from confirmatory studies of safety and effectiveness, these additional studies will further inform patient selection, expand experience with RDN in broader populations with hypertension, and provide guidance to how RDN may be incorporated into treatment pathways.