Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37645407›Full record

ArticleNEJM evidence2022

Quantifying Treatment Effects in Trials with Multiple Event-Time Outcomes.

Brian Lee Claggett, Zachary R McCaw, Lu Tian, John J V McMurray, Pardeep S Jhund, Hajime Uno, Marc A Pfeffer, Scott D Solomon, Lee-Jen Wei

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NEJM evidence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Temporal modulation (early escalation and late de-escalation) of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing complex high-risk PCI: rationale and design of the TAILORED-CHIP trial.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Brian Lee ClaggettCardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Zachary R McCawInsitro, South San Francisco.
Lu TianDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
John J V McMurrayBritish Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Center, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
Pardeep S JhundBritish Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Center, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
Hajime UnoDepartment of Data Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
Marc A PfefferCardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Scott D SolomonCardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Lee-Jen WeiHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.
Harvard University · USBritish Heart Foundation · GBBrigham and Women's Hospital · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · USInstituto Superior Politécnico Metropolitano de Angola · AOStanford University · US

Funding

Statistical Methods for Optimizing Personalized Treatment SelectionR01HL089778 · NHLBI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LU TIAN · 2008 to 2026
$4.8M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL089778
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData on the occurrence times of multiple outcomes, reflecting the temporal profile of disease burden/progression, have been used to estimate treatment effects in various recent randomized trials. Most procedures for analyzing these data require specific model assumptions. When the assumptions are not met, the results may be misleading. Robust, model-free procedures for study design and analysis that enable clinically meaningful interpretations are warranted.

methodsFor each treatment group, we constructed and summarized the estimated mean cumulative count of events over time by the area under the curve (AUC), which can be interpreted as the mean total event-free time lost from multiple undesirable outcomes. A higher curve, and resulting larger AUC, implies a worse treatment. The treatment effect is quantified by the ratio and/or difference of AUCs. The timing and occurrence of recurrent heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs) and cardiovascular (CV) death from Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction (PARAGON-HF), comparing sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan, are presented for illustration. We also discuss the design of future studies on the basis of the proposed method.

resultsWith 48 months of follow-up, estimated AUCs, representing the total event-free time lost to HFHs and CV death, were 11.3 and 13.1 event-months for sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan, respectively. The ratio of these AUCs was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.00; P=0.049), a 14% reduction of disease burden favoring combination therapy. A future study, similar to PARAGON-HF, designed using the new proposal would require fewer patients would than a conventional time-to-first-event analysis.

conclusionsThe proposed method is robust and model-free and provides a clinically interpretable, time-scale summary of the treatment effect. (Funded by National Institutes of Health.).

Identifiers

PMID37645407
PMCPMC10465123
OpenAlexW4283755492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.