Composite endpoints, including patient reported outcomes, in rare diseases.
Composite endpoints
EJP-RD
Epidermolysis bullosa
Generalized pairwise comparisons
Patient reported outcomes
Quality of life
Rare disease
Journal
Orphanet journal of rare diseases
ISSN: 1750-1172
Titre abrégé: Orphanet J Rare Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101266602
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2023
01 09 2023
Historique:
received:
07
03
2023
accepted:
08
07
2023
medline:
5
9
2023
pubmed:
2
9
2023
entrez:
1
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
When assessing the efficacy of a treatment in any clinical trial, it is recommended by the International Conference on Harmonisation to select a single meaningful endpoint. However, a single endpoint is often not sufficient to reflect the full clinical benefit of a treatment in multifaceted diseases, which is often the case in rare diseases. Therefore, the use of a combination of several clinically meaningful outcomes is preferred. Many methodologies that allow for combining outcomes in a so-called composite endpoint are however limited in a number of ways, not in the least in the number and type of outcomes that can be combined and in the poor small-sample properties. Moreover, patient reported outcomes, such as quality of life, often cannot be integrated in a composite analysis, in spite of their intrinsic value. Recently, a class of non-parametric generalized pairwise comparisons tests have been proposed, which members do allow for any number and type of outcomes, including patient reported outcomes. The class enjoys good small-sample properties. Moreover, this very flexible class of methods allows for prioritizing the outcomes by clinical severity, allows for matched designs and for adding a threshold of clinical relevance. Our aim is to introduce the generalized pairwise comparison ideas and concepts for rare disease clinical trial analysis, and demonstrate their benefit in a post-hoc analysis of a small-sample trial in epidermolysis bullosa. More precisely, we will include a patient relevant outcome (Quality of life), in a composite endpoint. This publication is part of the European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases (EJP RD) series on innovative methodologies for rare diseases clinical trials, which is based on the webinars presented within the educational activity of EJP RD. This publication covers the webinar topic on composite endpoints in rare diseases and includes participants' response to a questionnaire on this topic. Generalized pairwise comparisons is a promising statistical methodology for evaluating any type of composite endpoints in rare disease trials and may allow a better evaluation of therapy efficacy including patients reported outcomes in addition to outcomes related to the diseases signs and symptoms.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
When assessing the efficacy of a treatment in any clinical trial, it is recommended by the International Conference on Harmonisation to select a single meaningful endpoint. However, a single endpoint is often not sufficient to reflect the full clinical benefit of a treatment in multifaceted diseases, which is often the case in rare diseases. Therefore, the use of a combination of several clinically meaningful outcomes is preferred. Many methodologies that allow for combining outcomes in a so-called composite endpoint are however limited in a number of ways, not in the least in the number and type of outcomes that can be combined and in the poor small-sample properties. Moreover, patient reported outcomes, such as quality of life, often cannot be integrated in a composite analysis, in spite of their intrinsic value.
RESULTS
Recently, a class of non-parametric generalized pairwise comparisons tests have been proposed, which members do allow for any number and type of outcomes, including patient reported outcomes. The class enjoys good small-sample properties. Moreover, this very flexible class of methods allows for prioritizing the outcomes by clinical severity, allows for matched designs and for adding a threshold of clinical relevance. Our aim is to introduce the generalized pairwise comparison ideas and concepts for rare disease clinical trial analysis, and demonstrate their benefit in a post-hoc analysis of a small-sample trial in epidermolysis bullosa. More precisely, we will include a patient relevant outcome (Quality of life), in a composite endpoint. This publication is part of the European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases (EJP RD) series on innovative methodologies for rare diseases clinical trials, which is based on the webinars presented within the educational activity of EJP RD. This publication covers the webinar topic on composite endpoints in rare diseases and includes participants' response to a questionnaire on this topic.
CONCLUSIONS
Generalized pairwise comparisons is a promising statistical methodology for evaluating any type of composite endpoints in rare disease trials and may allow a better evaluation of therapy efficacy including patients reported outcomes in addition to outcomes related to the diseases signs and symptoms.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37658423
doi: 10.1186/s13023-023-02819-x
pii: 10.1186/s13023-023-02819-x
pmc: PMC10474650
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
262Informations de copyright
© 2023. Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM).
Références
Stat Med. 1999 Jun 15;18(11):1341-54
pubmed: 10399200
JAMA Oncol. 2016 Jul 1;2(7):901-5
pubmed: 27124210
Circ Heart Fail. 2012 Nov;5(6):742-9
pubmed: 23065036
Biom J. 2023 Feb;65(2):e2100354
pubmed: 36127290
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jun 4;73(21):2740-2755
pubmed: 31060767
Front Genet. 2014 Feb 20;5:32
pubmed: 24600471
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1979 Jul;8(1):7-20
pubmed: 552299
Eur Heart J. 2020 Dec 7;41(46):4391-4399
pubmed: 32901285
Biometrics. 2016 Sep;72(3):926-35
pubmed: 26812695
Am Heart J. 2016 Dec;182:80-88
pubmed: 27914503
J Biopharm Stat. 2018;28(4):778-796
pubmed: 29172988
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 May;78(5):892-901.e7
pubmed: 29410318
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Nov 1;111(11):1186-1191
pubmed: 30838402
Biometrics. 1989 Sep;45(3):1027-8
pubmed: 2790115
N Engl J Med. 2010 Oct 21;363(17):1597-607
pubmed: 20961243
J Biopharm Stat. 2020 Sep 2;30(5):765-782
pubmed: 32097079
JACC Heart Fail. 2020 Jun;8(6):441-450
pubmed: 32466836
Stat Med. 2019 Dec 30;38(30):5641-5656
pubmed: 31659790
J Biopharm Stat. 2023 Mar;33(2):140-150
pubmed: 35946932
Stat Med. 2021 Jun 30;40(14):3367-3384
pubmed: 33860957
J Invest Dermatol. 2012 Mar;132(3 Pt 2):763-75
pubmed: 22277943
Biometrics. 2006 Jun;62(2):424-31
pubmed: 16918906
Stat Med. 2014 Mar 30;33(7):1104-20
pubmed: 24122841
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Mar 8;14(5):515-527
pubmed: 33663779
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2019 Nov 12;16:100486
pubmed: 31799474
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Dec 04;17(1):159
pubmed: 29202708
Stat Methods Med Res. 2022 Aug;31(8):1423-1438
pubmed: 35578578
Am Heart J. 2020 Aug;226:222-231
pubmed: 32629295
Biometrics. 1984 Dec;40(4):1079-87
pubmed: 6534410
Eur Heart J. 2021 Jul 15;42(27):2670-2679
pubmed: 34000004
Eur Heart J. 2012 Jan;33(2):176-82
pubmed: 21900289
J Biopharm Stat. 2016;26(4):601-18
pubmed: 26098411
Biometrika. 1947;34(1-2):123-38
pubmed: 20287826
Stat Med. 2010 Dec 30;29(30):3245-57
pubmed: 21170918
J Biopharm Stat. 2019;29(1):1-29
pubmed: 29985752
Br J Cancer. 2015 Mar 17;112(6):971-6
pubmed: 25688740
N Engl J Med. 2018 Sep 13;379(11):1007-1016
pubmed: 30145929
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Jul 13;13:91
pubmed: 23848987