Development and Validation of a New Hierarchical Composite End Point for Clinical Trials of Kidney Disease Progression.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The established composite kidney end point in clinical trials combines clinical events with sustained large changes in GFR but does not weigh the relative clinical importance of the end point components. By contrast, a hierarchical composite end point (HCE) accounts for the clinical importance of the end point components. The authors developed and validated a kidney HCE that combines clinical kidney outcomes with longitudinal GFR changes (GFR slope). They demonstrate that in seven major placebo-controlled kidney outcome trials with different medications, treatment effect estimates on the HCE were consistently in similar directions and of similar magnitudes compared with treatment effects on the established kidney end point. The HCE's prioritization of clinical outcomes and ability to combine dichotomous outcomes with GFR slope make it an attractive alternative to the established kidney end point. BACKGROUND: The established composite kidney end point in clinical trials combines clinical events with sustained large changes in GFR. However, the statistical method does not weigh the relative clinical importance of the end point components. A HCE accounts for the clinical importance of the end point components and enables combining dichotomous outcomes with continuous measures. METHODS: We developed and validated a new HCE for kidney disease progression, performing post hoc analyses of seven major Phase 3 placebo-controlled trials that assessed the effects of canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, finerenone, atrasentan, losartan, irbesartan, and aliskiren in patients with CKD. We calculated the win odds (WOs) for treatment effects on a kidney HCE, defined as a hierarchical composite of all-cause mortality; kidney failure; sustained 57%, 50%, and 40% GFR declines from baseline; and GFR slope. The WO describes the odds of a more favorable outcome for receiving the active compared with the control. We compared the WO with the hazard ratio (HR) of the primary kidney outcome of the original trials. RESULTS: In all trials, treatment effects calculated with the WO reflected a similar direction and magnitude of the treatment effect compared with the HR. Clinical trials incorporating the HCE would achieve increased statistical power compared with the established composite end point at equivalent sample sizes. CONCLUSIONS: In seven major kidney clinical trials, the WO and HR provided similar direction of treatment effect estimates with smaller HRs associated with larger WOs. The prioritization of clinical outcomes and inclusion of broader composite end points makes the HCE an attractive alternative to the established kidney end point.

Validity and Utility of a Hierarchical Composite End Point for Clinical Trials of Kidney Disease Progression: A Review.

Clinical trials in nephrology often use composite end points comprising clinical events, such as onset of ESKD and initiation of kidney function replacement therapy, along with a sustained large ( e.g. , ≥50%) decrease in GFR. Such events typically occur late in the disease course, resulting in large trials in which most participants do not contribute clinical events. In addition, components of the end point are considered of equal importance; however, their clinical significance varies. For example, kidney function replacement therapy initiation is likely to be clinically more meaningful than GFR decline of ≥50%. By contrast, hierarchical composite end points (HCEs) combine multiple outcomes and prioritize each patient's most clinically relevant outcome for inclusion in analysis. In this review, we consider the use of HCEs in clinical trials of CKD progression, emphasizing the potential to combine dichotomous clinical events such as those typically used in CKD progression trials, with the continuous variable of GFR over time, while ranking all components according to clinical significance. We consider maraca plots to visualize overall treatment effects and the contributions of individual components, discuss the application of win odds in kidney HCE trials, and review general design considerations for clinical trials for CKD progression with kidney HCE as an efficacy end point.

Long-Term Treatment with the Combination of Rivaroxaban and Aspirin in Patients with Chronic Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease: Outcomes During the Open Label Extension of the COMPASS trial.

AIMS: To describe outcomes of patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) enrolled in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) randomized trial who were treated with the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 100 mg once daily during long-term open-label extension (LTOLE). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 27 395 patients enrolled in COMPASS, 12 964 (mean age at baseline 67.2 years) from 455 sites in 32 countries were enrolled in LTOLE and treated with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for a median of 374 additional days (range 1-1191 days). During LTOLE, the incident events per 100 patient years were as follows: for the primary outcome [cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI)] 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11-2.61], mortality 1.87 (1.65-2.10), stroke 0.62 (0.50-0.76), and MI 1.02 (0.86-1.19), with CIs that overlapped those seen during the randomized treatment phase with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The incidence rates for major and minor bleeding were 1.01 (0.86-1.19) and 2.49 (2.24-2.75), compared with 1.67 (1.48-1.87) and 5.11 (95% CI 4.77-5.47), respectively, during the randomized treatment phase with the combination. CONCLUSION: In patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD, extended combination treatment for a median of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years was associated with incidence rates for efficacy and bleeding that were similar to or lower than those seen during the randomized treatment phase, without any new safety signals.

Finerenone Reduces Risk of Incident Heart Failure in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes: Analyses From the FIGARO-DKD Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes are independently associated with heart failure (HF), a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. In the FIDELIO-DKD (Finerenone in Reducing Kidney Failure and Disease Progression in Diabetic Kidney Disease) and FIGARO-DKD (Finerenone in Reducing Cardiovascular Mortality and Morbidity in Diabetic Kidney Disease) trials, finerenone (a selective, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist) improved cardiovascular outcomes in patients with albuminuric chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes. These prespecified analyses from FIGARO-DKD assessed the effect of finerenone on clinically important HF outcomes. METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuric chronic kidney disease (urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥30 to <300 mg/g and estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥25 to ≤90 mL per min per 1.73 m2, or urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥300 to ≤5000 mg/g and estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥60 mL per min per 1.73 m2), without symptomatic HF with reduced ejection fraction, were randomized to finerenone or placebo. Time-to-first-event outcomes included new-onset HF (first hospitalization for HF [HHF] in patients without a history of HF at baseline); cardiovascular death or first HHF; HF-related death or first HHF; first HHF; cardiovascular death or total (first or recurrent) HHF; HF-related death or total HHF; and total HHF. Outcomes were evaluated in the overall population and in prespecified subgroups categorized by baseline HF history (as reported by the investigators). RESULTS: Overall, 7352 patients were included in these analyses; 571 (7.8%) had a history of HF at baseline. New-onset HF was significantly reduced with finerenone versus placebo (1.9% versus 2.8%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68 [95% CI, 0.50-0.93]; P=0.0162). In the overall population, the incidences of all HF outcomes analyzed were significantly lower with finerenone than placebo, including an 18% lower risk of cardiovascular death or first HHF (HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.70-0.95]; P=0.011), a 29% lower risk of first HHF (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.56-0.90]; P=0.0043) and a 30% lower rate of total HHF (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.52-0.94]). The effects of finerenone on improving HF outcomes were not modified by a history of HF. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was balanced between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results from these FIGARO-DKD analyses demonstrate that finerenone reduces new-onset HF and improves other HF outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes, irrespective of a history of HF. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02545049.

Finerenone Reduces New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at risk of atrial fibrillation or flutter (AFF) due to cardiac remodeling and kidney complications. Finerenone, a novel, selective, nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, inhibited cardiac remodeling in preclinical models. OBJECTIVES: This work aims to examine the effect of finerenone on new-onset AFF and cardiorenal effects by history of AFF in the Finerenone in Reducing Kidney Failure and Disease Progression in Diabetic Kidney Disease (FIDELIO-DKD) study. METHODS: Patients with CKD and T2D were randomized (1:1) to finerenone or placebo. Eligible patients had a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥30 to ≤5,000 mg/g, an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥25 to <75 ml/min/1.73 m2 and received optimized doses of renin-angiotensin system blockade. Effect on new-onset AFF was evaluated as a pre-specified outcome adjudicated by an independent cardiologist committee. The primary composite outcome (time to first onset of kidney failure, a sustained decrease of ≥40% in eGFR from baseline, or death from renal causes) and key secondary outcome (time to first onset of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) were analyzed by history of AFF. RESULTS: Of 5,674 patients, 461 (8.1%) had a history of AFF. New-onset AFF occurred in 82 (3.2%) patients on finerenone and 117 (4.5%) patients on placebo (hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.53-0.94; p = 0.016). The effect of finerenone on primary and key secondary kidney and cardiovascular outcomes was not significantly impacted by baseline AFF (interaction p value: 0.16 and 0.85, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CKD and T2D, finerenone reduced the risk of new-onset AFF. The risk of kidney or cardiovascular events was reduced irrespective of history of AFF at baseline. (EudraCT 2015-000990-11 [A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, event-driven Phase III study to investigate the efficacy and safety of finerenone, in addition to standard of care, on the progression of kidney disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus and the clinical diagnosis of diabetic kidney disease]; Efficacy and Safety of Finerenone in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetic Kidney Disease [FIDELIO-DKD]; NCT02540993).

AdEPro: Animation of Adverse Event Profiles-Presentation of an Easy-to-Use App for Visually Exploring Individual Study Data.

MOTIVATION: Reviewing the adverse event data collected in clinical trials is a lengthy and tedious process when these data are presented in the form of tables, data listings, and static graphs. Thus, to enable anyone interested in exploring adverse event data efficiently and relatively independently, we developed AdEPro, a compact, powerful, and easy-to-use interactive app. DESCRIPTION AND USE OF THE APP: AdEPro is an app for (audio-)visualizing adverse event data from clinical trials. The app dynamically displays the onset, severity, and development of selected adverse events on the individual subject level and on the treatment group level. This paper illustrates that there are numerous questions related to adverse events that can be approached by means of AdEPro, e.g., questions about temporal aspects of adverse events, associations between adverse events, and the influence of subject characteristics. AdEPro provides quick first answers to such questions; however, it does not provide statistical proof. Essentially, it acts as a versatile "hypothesis generator," helping the user to decide whether further analyses are indicated. No programming knowledge is required for exploring data by means of AdEPro. However, the user needs some basic knowledge of the software R and of extracting data from a clinical data base. The software code is open source, allowing modifications and expansions of the app, if desired. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: AdEPro can be freely obtained from https://cran.r-project.org/package=adepro . It runs on any computer on which R is installed. Patient data are stored and processed locally.

Major Bleeding in Patients With Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease Treated With Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin.

BACKGROUND: In patients with coronary or peripheral artery disease, the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 100 mg once daily compared with aspirin 100 mg once daily reduced major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality and increased bleeding. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to explore the effects of the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin on sites, timing, severity, and management of bleeding in the COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) study. METHODS: This study reports, by treatment group, the number and proportion of patients; hazard rate ratios for bleeding according to site and severity; the timing of bleeding using landmark analyses; and the number and proportion of patients who received blood products and other hemostatic treatments. RESULTS: Of 27,395 patients enrolled (mean age 68 years, 22% women), 18,278 were randomized to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or to aspirin alone and followed for a mean of 23 months. Compared with aspirin alone, the combination increased modified International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis major bleeding (288 of 9,152 [3.1%] vs. 170 of 9,126 [1.9%]), (HR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.40 to 2.05; p < 0.001), International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis major bleeding (206 of 9,152 [2.3%] vs. 116 of 9,126 [1.3%]), (HR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.41 to 2.23; p < 0.0001), and minor bleeding (838 of 9,152 [9.2%] vs. 503 of 9,126 [5.5%]), (HR: 1.70; 95% CI 1.52 to 1.90; p < 0.0001); the combination also increased the need for any red cell transfusion (87 of 9,152 [1.0%] vs. 44 of 9,126 [0.5%]), (HR: 1.97; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.83, p = 0.0002). The gastrointestinal (GI) tract was the most common site of increased major bleeding (140 of 9,152 [1.5%] vs. 65 of 9,126 [0.7%]), (HR: 2.15; 95% CI: 1.60 to 2.89; p < 0.001), and the increase in bleeding was predominantly in the first year after randomization. Approximately one-third of major GI bleeding was gastric or duodenal, one-third was colonic or rectal, and one-third was from an unknown GI site. The study investigators reported that approximately three-quarters of major bleeding episodes were of mild or moderate intensity. A similar proportion of patients in each treatment group who experienced major bleeding received platelets, clotting factors, or other hemostatic agents. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone increased major bleeding, mainly from the GI tract. Most excess bleeding occurred during the first year after randomization, was of mild or moderate intensity, and was managed with conventional supportive therapy. (Rivaroxaban for the Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events in Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease [COMPASS]; NCT01776424).