Outcome postponement as a potential patient centred measure of therapeutic benefit: examples in cardiovascular medicine

Abstract

Background: The impact of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) depends heavily on the presentation of the findings.

Objective: Classically, RCT findings are presented in the form of absolute risk reduction (ARR), number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one adverse outcome, and relative risk reduction (RRR) or hazard ratio (the most favourable means for drug marketing). However, the estimation of average survival gain (i.e. outcome postponement between a trial intervention and comparator) is an alternative and informative means of presenting the findings of RCTs.

Study selection: Recent cardiovascular RCTs evaluating ezetimibe added to simvastatin, evolocumab, canakinumab, ticagrelor, rivaroxaban, ivabradine, LCZ 696 (sacubitril/valsartan), and transfemoral aortic valve replacement are analysed and discussed.

Findings: The average survival gains ranged between 4.9 days on a composite end point with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in randomised patients with acute coronary syndrome and 117 days of life expectancy obtained with TAVR versus standard therapy in patients with severe aortic stenosis deemed ineligible for surgery.

Conclusions: Using outcome postponement as an additional measure of treatment effect is likely to be more easily understood than hazard ratio or RRR by both patients and physicians and could help when evaluating drugs.

Keywords:

• Cardiovascular therapeutic trials
• outcome postponement
• number needed to treat
• survival gain
• therapeutic benefit

Disclosure statement

All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

The corresponding author (the manuscript’s guarantor) affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.