Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Review

Sample size requirement in trials that use the composite endpoint major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): new insights

Authors: Josep Ramon Marsal, Iratxe Urreta-Barallobre, Marimar Ubeda-Carrillo, Dimelza Osorio, Blanca Lumbreras, David Lora, Borja M. Fernández-Felix, Gerard Oristrell, Eduard Ródenas-Alesina, Lorena Herrador, Mónica Ballesteros, Javier Zamora, Jose I. Pijoan, Aida Ribera, Ignacio Ferreira-González

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The real impact of the degree of association (DoA) between endpoint components of a composite endpoint (CE) on sample size requirement (SSR) has not been explored. We estimate the impact of the DoA between death and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) on SSR of trials using use the CE of major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

Methods

A systematic review and quantitative synthesis of trials that include MACE as the primary outcome through search strategies in MEDLINE and EMBASE electronic databases. We limited to articles published in journals indexed in the first quartile of the Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems category (Journal Citation Reports, 2015–2020). The authors were contacted to estimate the DoA between death and AMI using joint probability and correlation. We analyzed the SSR variation using the DoA estimated from RCTs.

Results

Sixty-three of 134 publications that reported event rates and the therapy effect in all component endpoints were included in the quantitative synthesis. The most frequent combination was death, AMI, and revascularization (n = 20; 31.8%). The correlation between death and AMI, estimated from 5 trials¸ oscillated between − 0.02 and 0.31. SSR varied from 14,602 in the scenario with the strongest correlation to 12,259 in the scenario with the weakest correlation; the relative impact was 16%.

Conclusions

The DoA between death and AMI is highly variable and may lead to a considerable SSR variation in a trial including MACE.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Lauer MS, Topol EJ. Clinical trials - multiple treatments, multiple endpoints, and multiple lessons. JAMA. 2003;289(19):2575–7.CrossRef Lauer MS, Topol EJ. Clinical trials - multiple treatments, multiple endpoints, and multiple lessons. JAMA. 2003;289(19):2575–7.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Ich C. ICH Topic E 9: statistical principles for clinical trials. London: EMEA (European Medicines Agengy); 2006. Ich C. ICH Topic E 9: statistical principles for clinical trials. London: EMEA (European Medicines Agengy); 2006.
3.
go back to reference Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869.CrossRef Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Prieto-Merino D, Smeeth L, Van STP, Roberts I. Dangers of non-specific composite outcome measures in clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;347(November):f6782.CrossRef Prieto-Merino D, Smeeth L, Van STP, Roberts I. Dangers of non-specific composite outcome measures in clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;347(November):f6782.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Kip KE, Hollabaugh K, Marroquin OC, Williams DO. The problem with composite end points in cardiovascular studies: the story of major adverse cardiac events and percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(7):701–7.CrossRef Kip KE, Hollabaugh K, Marroquin OC, Williams DO. The problem with composite end points in cardiovascular studies: the story of major adverse cardiac events and percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(7):701–7.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Ferreira-González I, Permanyer-Miralda G, Busse JW, Bryant DM, Montori VM, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Composite endpoints in clinical trials: the trees and the forest. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(7):660–1.CrossRef Ferreira-González I, Permanyer-Miralda G, Busse JW, Bryant DM, Montori VM, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Composite endpoints in clinical trials: the trees and the forest. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(7):660–1.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Freemantle N, Calvert M, Wood J, Eastaugh J, Griffin C. Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty? JAMA. 2003;289(19):2554–9.CrossRef Freemantle N, Calvert M, Wood J, Eastaugh J, Griffin C. Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty? JAMA. 2003;289(19):2554–9.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Freemantle N, Calvert MJ. Interpreting composite outcomes in trials. BMJ. 2010;341(aug18 3):c3529.CrossRef Freemantle N, Calvert MJ. Interpreting composite outcomes in trials. BMJ. 2010;341(aug18 3):c3529.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Sozu T, Sugimoto T, Hamasaki T. Sample size determination in clinical trials with multiple co-primary binary endpoints. Stat Med. 2010;29(21):2169–79.CrossRef Sozu T, Sugimoto T, Hamasaki T. Sample size determination in clinical trials with multiple co-primary binary endpoints. Stat Med. 2010;29(21):2169–79.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Ross S. Composite outcomes in randomized clinical trials: arguments for and against. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(2):119.e1–6.CrossRef Ross S. Composite outcomes in randomized clinical trials: arguments for and against. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(2):119.e1–6.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Xiong C, Yu K, Gao F, Yan Y, Zhang Z. Power and sample size for clinical trials when efficacy is required in multiple endpoints: application to an Alzheimer’s treatment trial. Clin Trials. 2005;2(5):387–93.CrossRef Xiong C, Yu K, Gao F, Yan Y, Zhang Z. Power and sample size for clinical trials when efficacy is required in multiple endpoints: application to an Alzheimer’s treatment trial. Clin Trials. 2005;2(5):387–93.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Cannon CP. Clinical perspectives on the use of composite endpoints. Control Clin Trials. 1997;18(6):517–9.CrossRef Cannon CP. Clinical perspectives on the use of composite endpoints. Control Clin Trials. 1997;18(6):517–9.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Marsal JR, Ferreira-González I, Bertran S, Ribera A, Permanyer-Miralda G, García-Dorado D, et al. The use of a binary composite endpoint and sample size requirement: influence of endpoints overlap. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;185(9):832–41.CrossRef Marsal JR, Ferreira-González I, Bertran S, Ribera A, Permanyer-Miralda G, García-Dorado D, et al. The use of a binary composite endpoint and sample size requirement: influence of endpoints overlap. Am J Epidemiol. 2017;185(9):832–41.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Bofill Roig M, Gómez MG. A new approach for sizing trials with composite binary endpoints using anticipated marginal values and accounting for the correlation between components. Stat Med. 2019;38(1):1–22. Bofill Roig M, Gómez MG. A new approach for sizing trials with composite binary endpoints using anticipated marginal values and accounting for the correlation between components. Stat Med. 2019;38(1):1–22.
16.
go back to reference Marsal JR, Ferreira-González I, Ribera A, Oristrell G, Pijoan JI, García-Dorado D. Bin-CE: A comprehensive web application to decide upon the best set of outcomes to be combined in a binary composite endpoint. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(12):e0209000. Marsal JR, Ferreira-González I, Ribera A, Oristrell G, Pijoan JI, García-Dorado D. Bin-CE: A comprehensive web application to decide upon the best set of outcomes to be combined in a binary composite endpoint. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(12):e0209000.
17.
go back to reference Cordoba G, Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Bae H, Gøtzsche PC. Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;341:c3920.CrossRef Cordoba G, Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Bae H, Gøtzsche PC. Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;341:c3920.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Ferreira-González I, Busse JW, Heels-Ansdell D, Montori VM, Akl E a, Bryant DM, et al. Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2007;334(7597):786.CrossRef Ferreira-González I, Busse JW, Heels-Ansdell D, Montori VM, Akl E a, Bryant DM, et al. Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2007;334(7597):786.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Bhardwaj SS, Camacho F, Derrow A, Fleischer AB, Feldman SR. Statistical significance and clinical relevance: the importance of power in clinical trials in dermatology. Arch Dermatol. 2004;140(12):1520–3.CrossRef Bhardwaj SS, Camacho F, Derrow A, Fleischer AB, Feldman SR. Statistical significance and clinical relevance: the importance of power in clinical trials in dermatology. Arch Dermatol. 2004;140(12):1520–3.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Ferreira-González I, Permanyer-Miralda G, Busse JW, Bryant DM, Montori VM, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(7):651–62.CrossRef Ferreira-González I, Permanyer-Miralda G, Busse JW, Bryant DM, Montori VM, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(7):651–62.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Gómez G, Lagakos SW. Statistical considerations when using a composite endpoint for comparing treatment groups. Stat Med. 2012;32(5):719–38.CrossRef Gómez G, Lagakos SW. Statistical considerations when using a composite endpoint for comparing treatment groups. Stat Med. 2012;32(5):719–38.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Gómez G, Gómez-Mateu M, Dafni U. Informed choice of composite end points in cardiovascular trials. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7(1):170–8.CrossRef Gómez G, Gómez-Mateu M, Dafni U. Informed choice of composite end points in cardiovascular trials. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7(1):170–8.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Chi GYH. Some issues with composite endpoints in clinical trials. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2005;19(6):609–19.CrossRef Chi GYH. Some issues with composite endpoints in clinical trials. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2005;19(6):609–19.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Altman D, Antes G, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Altman D, Antes G, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
25.
go back to reference Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):97–111.CrossRef Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):97–111.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1981. Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1981.
28.
go back to reference Casagrande JT, Pike MC. An improved approximate formula for calculating sample sizes for comparing two binomial distributions. Biometrics. 1978;34(3):483–6.CrossRef Casagrande JT, Pike MC. An improved approximate formula for calculating sample sizes for comparing two binomial distributions. Biometrics. 1978;34(3):483–6.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Zhao K, Zhang Y, Li J, Cui Q, Zhao R, Chen W, et al. Modified glucose-insulin-potassium regimen provides cardioprotection with improved tissue perfusion in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass surgery. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(6) Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32151220/. Cited 2022 Sep 19. Zhao K, Zhang Y, Li J, Cui Q, Zhao R, Chen W, et al. Modified glucose-insulin-potassium regimen provides cardioprotection with improved tissue perfusion in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass surgery. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(6) Available from: https://​pubmed.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​32151220/​. Cited 2022 Sep 19.
34.
go back to reference Bofill Roig M, Gómez MG. Selection of composite binary endpoints in clinical trials. Biometrical J. 2018;60(2):246–61.CrossRef Bofill Roig M, Gómez MG. Selection of composite binary endpoints in clinical trials. Biometrical J. 2018;60(2):246–61.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Sample size requirement in trials that use the composite endpoint major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): new insights
Authors
Josep Ramon Marsal
Iratxe Urreta-Barallobre
Marimar Ubeda-Carrillo
Dimelza Osorio
Blanca Lumbreras
David Lora
Borja M. Fernández-Felix
Gerard Oristrell
Eduard Ródenas-Alesina
Lorena Herrador
Mónica Ballesteros
Javier Zamora
Jose I. Pijoan
Aida Ribera
Ignacio Ferreira-González
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06977-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Trials 1/2022 Go to the issue