The Problem With Composite End Points in Cardiovascular Studies. The Story of Major Adverse Cardiac Events and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

College of Nursing, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33612, USA.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Impact Factor: 16.5). 03/2008; 51(7):701-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.10.034
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Our purpose was to evaluate the heterogeneity and validity of composite end points, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in particular, in cardiology research.
The term MACE is a commonly used end point for cardiovascular research. By definition, MACE is a composite of clinical events and usually includes end points reflecting safety and effectiveness. There is no standard definition for MACE, as individual outcomes used to make this composite end point vary by study. This inconsistency calls into question whether use of MACE in cardiology research is of value.
We conducted a 2-phase literature review on the use of MACE as a composite end point: 1) studies that have compared use of bare-metal versus drug-eluting stents; and 2) studies published in the Journal in calendar year 2006. We subsequently tested 3 different definitions of MACE during 1-year of follow-up among 6,922 patients in the DEScover registry who received at least 1 drug-eluting stent.
The review identified substantial heterogeneity in the study-specific individual outcomes used to define MACE. Markedly different results were observed for selected patient subsets of acute myocardial infarction (MI) (vs. no MI) and multilesion stenting (vs. single-lesion stenting) according to the various definitions of MACE.
Varying definitions of composite end points, such as MACE, can lead to substantially different results and conclusions. Therefore, the term MACE, in particular, should not be used, and when composite study end points are desired, researchers should focus separately on safety and effectiveness outcomes, and construct separate composite end points to match these different clinical goals.

Download full-text


Available from: Oscar C Marroquin, Jun 03, 2015
16 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The design and analysis features of prevention trials are common to treatment trials. However, since prevention trials are usually performed in well populations who have a low incidence of disease, and require treatment and follow-up that typically last years, the operation, philosophy and ethics of prevention trials are different from those of treatment trials. Compared with the typical treatment trial, prevention trials have larger sample sizes and longer periods of follow-up. The potential for harm in a treatment trial arises simultaneously with the potential for benefit making it fairly straightforward to interpret, and to justify the balance of risks and benefits.However, for long-term prevention trials, the potential for harmbegins to accrue with the start of the treatment, while the potential for benefit, if any, may be far in the future and then only realized by the delay or absence of disease. Trialists struggle to maintain patient retention and compliance in prevention trials that require long periods of follow-up. Factorial designs or large, simple designsmay improve the efficiency of prevention trials. Analysis of prevention trials may be complicated by a lower than expected incidence of disease, performing and interpreting many subgroup analyses and dealing with missing data.
    Pharmaceutical Medicine 12/2012; 25(6). DOI:10.1007/BF03256880
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The spectrum of evidence imparted by the different clinical research designs ranges from ecological studies through observational epidemiological studies to randomized control trials (RCTs). This chapter addresses the definition of clinical research, the major aspects of clinical trials eg ethics, randomization, masking, recruitment and retention of subjects enrolled in a clinical trial, patients/subjects lost to follow-up during the trial etc. Although this chapter focuses on the weaknesses of clinical trials, it is emphasized that the randomized, placebocontrolled, double blind clinical trial is the design that yields the greatest level of scientific evidence. A researcher is in a gondola of a balloon that loses lift and lands in the middle of afield near a road. Of course, it looks like the balloon landed in the middle of nowhere. As the researcher ponders appropriate courses of action, another person wanders by. The researcher asks, ‘Where am I?’ The other person responds, ‘You are in the gondola of a balloon in the middle of a field.’ The researcher comments, ‘You must design clinical trials.’ ‘Well, that’ amazing, how did you know?’ ‘Your answer was correct and precise and totally useless.’
    Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons 05/2003; 88(5):43. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4020-8486-7_3
  • Source
    Journal of the American College of Cardiology 04/2004; 43(5):875-90. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2003.12.024 · 16.50 Impact Factor
Show more