For more detailed information about the cookies we use, see our Cookies page.
Essential Cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. These cookies are necessary for the performance of the service and may not be removed.
Non-Essential Cookies are preference, marketing, and functional cookies that help the application perform to its full extent, advertising related to the IdeaScale marketing website, and ensure the application functions properly. Preferences cookies personalize your experience while accessing IdeaScale by remembering your preferences, such as preferred language and region of origin. Analytics cookies collect anonymized information about how you use the IdeaScale services, such as the IdeaScale pages you visit most frequently and the error messages you encounter. These cookies only analyze your movement within IdeaScale and are used to improve the functioning of IdeaScale services. Marketing cookies advertise IdeaScale services to you elsewhere on the Internet. These cookies enable the delivery of interest-based ads that may be relevant to you as a result of your activities on IdeaScale and provide IdeaScale with information (such as where you saw the ad) to help analyze the impact of its advertising campaigns. IdeaScale also includes links to social networks and third-party sites (for example, Facebook and LinkedIn), which may then use information about your visit to target advertising to you on their websites.
The use of win-ratio and other new statistical methods to analyze endpoints in new and existing clinical trials.
Is this idea a Compelling Question (CQ) or Critical Challenge (CC)?
Compelling Question (CQ)
Details on the impact of addressing this CQ or CC
It could enable trials to be powered with smaller sample sizes. It can also be used to combine diverse information in a way to better guide clinical decisions.
Feasibility and challenges of addressing this CQ or CC
The methodology exists and the need is growing as we try to sort out smaller treatment effects and our focus shifts from MI (which is fairly easy to define) to heart failure (which is more nebulous).
Traditional time-to-first endpoint analyses of clinical trials fail to capture the full impact of treatment in diseases with recurring endpoints (like heart failure hospitalization) or to capture the net benefit/risk of treatments with significant opposing effects (like the anti-thrombotic pro-bleeding effects of drugs like warfarin and dabigatran in atrial fibrillation or dual anti-platelet therapy after cardiovascular stenting), New statistical methods like the (win-ratio) when used together with patient- and clinician-based rankings of the importance of possible outcomes might provide a quantitative way to optimize the relevance of trials with multiple diverse endpoints to practical clinical decision making. I propose to encourage the use of these and other similar methodologies to analyze endpoints in new and existing trials. It would require a paradigm shift in how trialists look at endpoint data and in how regulators interpret trials.
Name of idea submitter and other team members who worked on this idea