Gradation of Clinical Holistic Response as New Composite Outcome to Evaluate Success in Spinal Cord Stimulation Studies for Pain

INTRODUCTION

The most prominent outcome measurement in the field of neuromodulation is pain relief. Nevertheless, the number of studies that rely on composite outcomes has increased. The aims of this study are twofold: (1) to evaluate which measures are important to include in a composite outcome and (2) to develop this new composite outcome to evaluate the degree of being a clinical holistic responder with a corresponding minimal clinical important difference (MCID).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 treated with High-Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation (HD-SCS) were used. Pain intensity for low back and leg pain, disability, health-related quality of life, medication use, and patient satisfaction were measured at baseline and after 12 months of HD-SCS. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses were used to evaluate which measures should be included in the composite outcome. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were applied to determine the MCID of the newly developed outcome measurement.

RESULTS

A three-factor model was the most appropriate for this data set, in which leg pain intensity, EQ5D VAS, and disability had the largest loading on these factors. A clinical holistic outcome was created with a total score ranging from 0 (=better [no pain, no disability, and perfect health status]) to 300 (=worse [maximal pain, maximal disability, and worst health status]). The MCID value based on an absolute change score from baseline up to 12 months of HD-SCS was 87.97. When calculating with percentage changes, a MCID value of 48.4% was revealed.

CONCLUSIONS

This new composite outcome evaluating the degree of deviation from being a holistic responder is a step toward a meaningful, overall outcome assessment for patients who are treated with SCS. Further studies to evaluate the psychometric properties and the generalizability toward other patient populations still need to be performed.

Use of Composite End Points in Early and Intermediate Age-Related Macular Degeneration Clinical Trials: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions

The slow progression of early age-related macular degeneration (AMD) stages to advanced AMD requires the use of surrogate end points in clinical trials. The use of combined end points may allow for shorter and smaller trials due to increased precision. We performed a literature search for the use of composite end points as primary outcome measures in clinical studies of early AMD stages. PubMed was searched for composite end points used in early/intermediate AMD studies published during the last 10 years. A total of 673 articles of interest were identified. After reviewing abstracts and applicable full-text articles, 33 articles were eligible and thus included in the qualitative synthesis. The main composite end point categories were: combined structural and functional end points, combined structural end points, combined functional end points and combined multicategorical end points. The majority of the studies included binary composite end points. There was a lack of sensitivity analyses of different end points against accepted outcomes (i.e., progression) in the literature. Various composite outcome measures have been used but there is a lack of standardization. To date no agreement on the optimal approach to implement combined end points in clinical studies of early stages of AMD exists, and no surrogate end points have been accepted for AMD progression.

Criteria for use of composite end points for competing risks-a systematic survey of the literature with recommendations

BACKGROUND

Composite end points are frequently used in reports of clinical trials. One rationale for the use of composite end points is to account for competing risks. In the presence of competing risks, the event rate of a specific event depends on the rates of other competing events. One proposed solution is to include all important competing events in one composite end point. Clinical trialists require guidance regarding when this approach is appropriate.

OBJECTIVES

To identify publications describing criteria for use of composite end points for competing risk and to offer guidance regarding when a composite end point is appropriate on the basis of competing risks.

METHODS, DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, The Cochrane's Central & Systematic Review databases including the Health Technology Assessment database, and the Cochrane's Methodology register from inception to April 2015, and candidate textbooks, to identify all articles providing guidance on this issue. Eligible publications explicitly addressed the issue of a composite outcome to address competing risks. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts for full-text review; independently reviewed full-text publications; and abstracted specific criteria authors offered for use of composite end points to address competing risks.

RESULTS

Of 63,645 titles and abstracts, 166 proved potentially relevant of which 43 publications were included in the final review. Most publications note competing risks as a reason for using composite end points without further elaboration. None of the articles or textbook chapters provide specific criteria for use of composite end points for competing risk. Some advocate using composite end points to avoid bias due to competing risks and others suggest that composite end points seldom or never be used for this purpose. We recommend using composite end points for competing risks only if the competing risk is plausible and if it occurs with sufficiently high frequency to influence the interpretation of the effect of intervention on the end point of interest. These criteria will seldom be met. Review of heart failure trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine revealed that many of them use the composite end point of death or hospitalization; none of the trials, however, satisfied our criteria.

CONCLUSION

The existing literature fails to provide clear guidance regarding use of composite end point for competing risks. We recommend using composite end points for competing risks only if the competing risk is plausible and if it occurs sufficiently often.