Choice of clinical outcomes in randomized trials of heart failure therapies: Disease-specific or overall outcomes?

Salim Yusuf, Abdissa Negassa

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: There are different views regarding the appropriateness of using cause-specific events or all events as the primary outcome of clinical trials. Methods: This is a methodologic essay in which we discuss the pros and cons of the 2 approaches and provide illustrative examples. Results: Our preference is the use of cause-specific outcomes (as long as they can be classified with reasonable reproducibility and without bias) because they are more likely to be sensitive to change, less likely to lead to spurious conclusions by random variations in categories of outcomes that are unlikely to be affected by treatment, and relatively free from confounding. Overall benefit-risk ratios can be derived by examining the impact of treatment on various categories of outcomes and then developing a general judgment. Such an approach will also allow judgments to be made regarding generalizability of results across various groups of patients who are at differing risks for an event. Conclusions: In general, cause-specific outcomes sensitive to the effects of a treatment are to be preferred as the principal outcome in trials of heart failure, as long as they are biologically sensible and can be classified without bias. Other outcomes, not expected to be affected, should also be reported separately.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)22-28
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Heart Journal
Volume143
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Heart Failure
Therapeutics
Odds Ratio
Clinical Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Choice of clinical outcomes in randomized trials of heart failure therapies : Disease-specific or overall outcomes? / Yusuf, Salim; Negassa, Abdissa.

In: American Heart Journal, Vol. 143, No. 1, 2002, p. 22-28.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2cb340bbac804ad2b4812277d773c0ed,
title = "Choice of clinical outcomes in randomized trials of heart failure therapies: Disease-specific or overall outcomes?",
abstract = "Background: There are different views regarding the appropriateness of using cause-specific events or all events as the primary outcome of clinical trials. Methods: This is a methodologic essay in which we discuss the pros and cons of the 2 approaches and provide illustrative examples. Results: Our preference is the use of cause-specific outcomes (as long as they can be classified with reasonable reproducibility and without bias) because they are more likely to be sensitive to change, less likely to lead to spurious conclusions by random variations in categories of outcomes that are unlikely to be affected by treatment, and relatively free from confounding. Overall benefit-risk ratios can be derived by examining the impact of treatment on various categories of outcomes and then developing a general judgment. Such an approach will also allow judgments to be made regarding generalizability of results across various groups of patients who are at differing risks for an event. Conclusions: In general, cause-specific outcomes sensitive to the effects of a treatment are to be preferred as the principal outcome in trials of heart failure, as long as they are biologically sensible and can be classified without bias. Other outcomes, not expected to be affected, should also be reported separately.",
author = "Salim Yusuf and Abdissa Negassa",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1067/mhj.2002.119770",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "143",
pages = "22--28",
journal = "American Heart Journal",
issn = "0002-8703",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Choice of clinical outcomes in randomized trials of heart failure therapies

T2 - Disease-specific or overall outcomes?

AU - Yusuf, Salim

AU - Negassa, Abdissa

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - Background: There are different views regarding the appropriateness of using cause-specific events or all events as the primary outcome of clinical trials. Methods: This is a methodologic essay in which we discuss the pros and cons of the 2 approaches and provide illustrative examples. Results: Our preference is the use of cause-specific outcomes (as long as they can be classified with reasonable reproducibility and without bias) because they are more likely to be sensitive to change, less likely to lead to spurious conclusions by random variations in categories of outcomes that are unlikely to be affected by treatment, and relatively free from confounding. Overall benefit-risk ratios can be derived by examining the impact of treatment on various categories of outcomes and then developing a general judgment. Such an approach will also allow judgments to be made regarding generalizability of results across various groups of patients who are at differing risks for an event. Conclusions: In general, cause-specific outcomes sensitive to the effects of a treatment are to be preferred as the principal outcome in trials of heart failure, as long as they are biologically sensible and can be classified without bias. Other outcomes, not expected to be affected, should also be reported separately.

AB - Background: There are different views regarding the appropriateness of using cause-specific events or all events as the primary outcome of clinical trials. Methods: This is a methodologic essay in which we discuss the pros and cons of the 2 approaches and provide illustrative examples. Results: Our preference is the use of cause-specific outcomes (as long as they can be classified with reasonable reproducibility and without bias) because they are more likely to be sensitive to change, less likely to lead to spurious conclusions by random variations in categories of outcomes that are unlikely to be affected by treatment, and relatively free from confounding. Overall benefit-risk ratios can be derived by examining the impact of treatment on various categories of outcomes and then developing a general judgment. Such an approach will also allow judgments to be made regarding generalizability of results across various groups of patients who are at differing risks for an event. Conclusions: In general, cause-specific outcomes sensitive to the effects of a treatment are to be preferred as the principal outcome in trials of heart failure, as long as they are biologically sensible and can be classified without bias. Other outcomes, not expected to be affected, should also be reported separately.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036141025&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036141025&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1067/mhj.2002.119770

DO - 10.1067/mhj.2002.119770

M3 - Article

C2 - 11773908

AN - SCOPUS:0036141025

VL - 143

SP - 22

EP - 28

JO - American Heart Journal

JF - American Heart Journal

SN - 0002-8703

IS - 1

ER -