Development and Validation of a New Hierarchical Composite End Point for Clinical Trials of Kidney Disease Progression

BACKGROUND: The established composite kidney end point in clinical trials combines clinical events with sustained large changes in GFR. However, the statistical method does not weigh the relative clinical importance of the end point components. A HCE accounts for the clinical importance of the end point components and enables combining dichotomous outcomes with continuous measures. METHODS: We developed and validated a new HCE for kidney disease progression, performing post hoc analyses of seven major Phase 3 placebo-controlled trials that assessed the effects of canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, finerenone, atrasentan, losartan, irbesartan, and aliskiren in patients with CKD. We calculated the win odds (WOs) for treatment effects on a kidney HCE, defined as a hierarchical composite of all-cause mortality; kidney failure; sustained 57%, 50%, and 40% GFR declines from baseline; and GFR slope. The WO describes the odds of a more favorable outcome for receiving the active compared with the control. We compared the WO with the hazard ratio (HR) of the primary kidney outcome of the original trials. RESULTS: In all trials, treatment effects calculated with the WO reflected a similar direction and magnitude of the treatment effect compared with the HR. Clinical trials incorporating the HCE would achieve increased statistical power compared with the established composite end point at equivalent sample sizes. CONCLUSIONS: In seven major kidney clinical trials, the WO and HR provided similar direction of treatment effect estimates with smaller HRs associated with larger WOs. The prioritization of clinical outcomes and inclusion of broader composite end points makes the HCE an attractive alternative to the established kidney end point

Dapagliflozin across the range of ejection fraction in patients with heart failure:a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER

Whether the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduces the risk of a range of morbidity and mortality outcomes in patients with heart failure regardless of ejection fraction is unknown. A patient-level pooled meta-analysis of two trials testing dapagliflozin in participants with heart failure and different ranges of left ventricular ejection fraction (40%) was pre-specified to examine the effect of treatment on endpoints that neither trial, individually, was powered for and to test the consistency of the effect of dapagliflozin across the range of ejection fractions. The pre-specified endpoints were: death from cardiovascular causes; death from any cause; total hospital admissions for heart failure; and the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs)). A total of 11,007 participants with a mean ejection fraction of 44% (s.d. 14%) were included. Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of death from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-0.97; P = 0.01), death from any cause (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.99; P = 0.03), total hospital admissions for heart failure (rate ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.65-0.78; P &lt; 0.001) and MACEs (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81-1.00; P = 0.045). There was no evidence that the effect of dapagliflozin differed by ejection fraction. In a patient-level pooled meta-analysis covering the full range of ejection fractions in patients with heart failure, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of death from cardiovascular causes and hospital admissions for heart failure (PROSPERO: CRD42022346524).A pre-specified meta-analysis of pooled, individual patient-level data from the DELIVER and DAPA-HF trials, testing dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure, demonstrates reductions in risk of cardiovascular-associated deaths and hospital admissions for heart failure, regardless of ejection fraction.</p

Dapagliflozin and Kidney Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Infection:An Analysis of the DARE-19 Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and objectives: Patients who were hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection are at high risk of AKI and KRT, especially in the presence of CKD. The Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients with COVID-19 (DARE-19) trial showed that in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, treatment with dapagliflozin versus placebo resulted in numerically fewer participants who experienced organ failure or death, although these differences were not statistically significant. We performed a secondary analysis of the DARE-19 trial to determine the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin on kidney outcomes in the overall population and in prespecified subgroups of participants defined by baseline eGFR. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: The DARE-19 trial randomized 1250 patients who were hospitalized (231 [18%] had eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2) with COVID-19 and cardiometabolic risk factors to dapagliflozin or placebo. Dual primary outcomes (time to new or worsened organ dysfunction or death, and a hierarchical composite end point of recovery [change in clinical status by day 30]), and the key secondary kidney outcome (composite of AKI, KRT, or death), and safety were assessed in participants with baseline eGFR <60 and ≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Results: The effect of dapagliflozin versus placebo on the primary prevention outcome (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 1.10), primary recovery outcome (win ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.22), and the composite kidney outcome (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 1.07) were consistent across eGFR subgroups (P for interaction: 0.98, 0.67, and 0.44, respectively). The effects of dapagliflozin on AKI were also similar in participants with eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 1.77) and ≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.37 to 1.29). Dapagliflozin was well tolerated in participants with eGFR <60 and ≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Conclusions: The effects of dapagliflozin on primary and secondary outcomes in hospitalized participants with COVID-19 were consistent in those with eGFR below/above 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Dapagliflozin was well tolerated and did not increase the risk of AKI in participants with eGFR below or above 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2

Dapagliflozin and recurrent heart failure hospitalizations in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: an analysis of DAPA-HF

Background: Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) will experience multiple hospitalizations for heart failure during the course of their disease. We assessed the efficacy of dapagliflozin on reducing the rate of total (i.e. first and repeat) hospitalizations for heart failure in the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF). Methods: The total number of HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular deaths was examined using the proportional rates approach of Lei-Wei-Ying-Yang (LWYY) and a joint frailty model for each of recurrent HF hospitalizations and time to cardiovascular death. Variables associated with the risk of recurrent hospitalizations were explored in a multivariable LWYY model. Results: Of 2371 participants randomized to placebo, 318 experienced 469 hospitalizations for heart failure among; of 2373 assigned to dapagliflozin, 230 patients experienced 340 admissions. In a multivariable model factors associated with a higher risk of recurrent HF hospitalizations included higher heart rate, higher NT-proBNP and NYHA class. In the LWYY model the rate ratio for the effect of dapagliflozin on recurrent HF hospitalizations or CV death was 0.75 (95%CI 0.65-0.88), p=0.0002. In the joint frailty model, rate ratio for total HF hospitalizations was 0.71 (95% CI 0.61-0.82), p&lt;0.0001 while for cardiovascular death the hazard ratio was 0.81(95%CI 0.67-0.98), p=00282. Conclusions: Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of total (first and repeat) HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death. Time-to-first event analysis underestimated the benefit of dapagliflozin in HFrEF. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT0303612

Dapagliflozin across the range of ejection fraction in patients with heart failure: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER

Whether the sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduces the risk of a range of morbidity and mortality outcomes in patients with heart failure regardless of ejection fraction is unknown. A patient-level pooled meta-analysis of two trials testing dapagliflozin in participants with heart failure and different ranges of left ventricular ejection fraction (≤40% and &gt;40%) was pre-specified to examine the effect of treatment on endpoints that neither trial, individually, was powered for and to test the consistency of the effect of dapagliflozin across the range of ejection fractions. The pre-specified endpoints were: death from cardiovascular causes; death from any cause; total hospital admissions for heart failure; and the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs)). A total of 11,007 participants with a mean ejection fraction of 44% (s.d. 14%) were included. Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of death from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76–0.97; P = 0.01), death from any cause (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82–0.99; P = 0.03), total hospital admissions for heart failure (rate ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.65–0.78; P &lt; 0.001) and MACEs (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81–1.00; P = 0.045). There was no evidence that the effect of dapagliflozin differed by ejection fraction. In a patient-level pooled meta-analysis covering the full range of ejection fractions in patients with heart failure, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of death from cardiovascular causes and hospital admissions for heart failure (PROSPERO: CRD42022346524)

Validity and Utility of a Hierarchical Composite End Point for Clinical Trials of Kidney Disease Progression:A Review

Clinical trials in nephrology often use composite end points comprising clinical events, such as onset of ESKD and initiation of kidney function replacement therapy, along with a sustained large (e.g., $50$50%. By contrast, hierarchical composite end points (HCEs) combine multiple outcomes and prioritize each patient’s most clinically relevant outcome for inclusion in analysis. In this review, we consider the use of HCEs in clinical trials of CKD progression, emphasizing the potential to combine dichotomous clinical events such as those typically used in CKD progression trials, with the continuous variable of GFR over time, while ranking all components according to clinical significance. We consider maraca plots to visualize overall treatment effects and the contributions of individual components, discuss the application of win odds in kidney HCE trials, and review general design considerations for clinical trials for CKD progression with kidney HCE as an efficacy end point.</p

Validity and Utility of a Hierarchical Composite End Point for Clinical Trials of Kidney Disease Progression:A Review

Clinical trials in nephrology often use composite end points comprising clinical events, such as onset of ESKD and initiation of kidney function replacement therapy, along with a sustained large (e.g., $50$50%. By contrast, hierarchical composite end points (HCEs) combine multiple outcomes and prioritize each patient’s most clinically relevant outcome for inclusion in analysis. In this review, we consider the use of HCEs in clinical trials of CKD progression, emphasizing the potential to combine dichotomous clinical events such as those typically used in CKD progression trials, with the continuous variable of GFR over time, while ranking all components according to clinical significance. We consider maraca plots to visualize overall treatment effects and the contributions of individual components, discuss the application of win odds in kidney HCE trials, and review general design considerations for clinical trials for CKD progression with kidney HCE as an efficacy end point.</p

Development and Validation of a New Hierarchical Composite End Point for Clinical Trials of Kidney Disease Progression

Background The established composite kidney end point in clinical trials combines clinical events with sustained large changes in GFR. However, the statistical method does not weigh the relative clinical importance of the end point components. A HCE accounts for the clinical importance of the end point components and enables combining dichotomous outcomes with continuous measures. Methods We developed and validated a new HCE for kidney disease progression, performing post hoc analyses of seven major Phase 3 placebo-controlled trials that assessed the effects of canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, finerenone, atrasentan, losartan, irbesartan, and aliskiren in patients with CKD. We calculated the win odds (WOs) for treatment effects on a kidney HCE, defined as a hierarchical composite of all-cause mortality; kidney failure; sustained 57%, 50%, and 40% GFR declines from baseline; and GFR slope. The WO describes the odds of a more favorable outcome for receiving the active compared with the control. We compared the WO with the hazard ratio (HR) of the primary kidney outcome of the original trials. Results In all trials, treatment effects calculated with the WO reflected a similar direction and magnitude of the treatment effect compared with the HR. Clinical trials incorporating the HCE would achieve increased statistical power compared with the established composite end point at equivalent sample sizes. Conclusions In seven major kidney clinical trials, the WO and HR provided similar direction of treatment effect estimates with smaller HRs associated with larger WOs. The prioritization of clinical outcomes and inclusion of broader composite end points makes the HCE an attractive alternative to the established kidney end point.</p

Dapagliflozin and Days of Full Health Lost in the DAPA-HF Trial

Background: Conventional time-to-first-event analyses cannot incorporate recurrent hospitalizations and patient well-being in a single outcome. Objectives: To overcome this limitation, we tested an integrated measure that includes days lost from death and hospitalization, and additional days of full health lost through diminished well-being. Methods: The effect of dapagliflozin on this integrated measure was assessed in the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial, which examined the efficacy of dapagliflozin, compared with placebo, in patients with NYHA functional class II to IV heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%. Results: Over 360 days, patients in the dapagliflozin group (n = 2,127) lost 10.6 ± 1.0 (2.9%) of potential follow-up days through cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization, compared with 14.4 ± 1.0 days (4.0%) in the placebo group (n = 2,108), and this component of all measures of days lost accounted for the greatest between-treatment difference (−3.8 days [95% CI: −6.6 to −1.0 days]). Patients receiving dapagliflozin also had fewer days lost to death and hospitalization from all causes vs placebo (15.5 ± 1.1 days [4.3%] vs 20.3 ± 1.1 days [5.6%]). When additional days of full health lost (ie, adjusted for Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire–overall summary score) were added, total days lost were 110.6 ± 1.6 days (30.7%) with dapagliflozin vs 116.9 ± 1.6 days (32.5%) with placebo. The difference in all measures between the 2 groups increased over time (ie, days lost by death and hospitalization −0.9 days [−0.7%] at 120 days, −2.3 days [−1.0%] at 240 days, and −4.8 days [−1.3%] at 360 days). Conclusions: Dapagliflozin reduced the total days of potential full health lost due to death, hospitalizations, and impaired well-being, and this benefit increased over time during the first year.</p