Science & Technology Review >

2024 , Vol. 42 >Issue 21: 87 - 93

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3981/j.issn.1000-7857.2024.05.00474

Exclusive: The paradigm and application of clinical research in traditional Chinese medicine

An efficacy evaluation method for analyzing composite endpoints based on patient preference and it's implications for traditional Chinese medicine

  • LI Shuangjing ,
  • YAN Shiyan ,
  • LU Ying
Expand
  • 1. College of Acupuncture and Massage, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100010, China;
    2. Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University School of Medicine, California 94305, USA

Received date: 2024-03-13

  Revised date: 2024-07-09

  Online published: 2024-12-14

Fold

Abstract

When composite endpoints are used as efficacy indicators in clinical efficacy evaluation, the same weight is usually assigned to each indicator for overall evaluation.In fact, different indicators are often of different importances for patients, and a simple comprehensive analysis cannot reflect the important concept of "patient-centered".To address these issues, this article introduces an efficacy evaluation method based on patient preference analysis of composite endpoints.By integrating multidimensional indicators (such as clinical efficacy indicators, patient-reported outcomes) while considering each patient preference, this method ranks different indicators, assigns varying importances, and compares efficacies of interventions.It is concluded that this method is suitable for the evaluation of complex intervention in traditional Chinese medicine and is compatible with the holistic view and individual treatment, which can reflect the clinical reality and the real diagnosis and treatment environment, and embody the real value of treatment to patients.It is suggested that in the future, the traditional Chinese medicine researchers should apply this method in efficacy evaluation scenarios with multiple composite indicators, patient-reported outcomes and real world.

Key words： patient preference; composite endpoint; desirability of outcome ranking; evaluation of traditional Chinese medicine clinical efficacy; real world study

Cite this article

LI Shuangjing , YAN Shiyan , LU Ying . An efficacy evaluation method for analyzing composite endpoints based on patient preference and it's implications for traditional Chinese medicine[J]. Science & Technology Review, 2024 , 42(21) : 87 -93 . DOI: 10.3981/j.issn.1000-7857.2024.05.00474

References

[1] 王心怡, 龙囿霖, 方可, 等. 复合终点在临床研究中的应用与挑战[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2023, 23(12): 1465- 1471.
[2] 彭菊聪, 孙甜甜, 李伦, 等. 复合终点[J]. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2012, 7(4): 305-307.
[3] Chi G Y H. Some issues with composite endpoints in clinical trials[J]. Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology, 2005, 19(6): 609-619.
[4] Montori V M, Permanyer-Miralda G, Ferreira-González I, et al. Validity of composite end points in clinical trials[J]. BMJ, 2005, 330(7491): 594-596.
[5] Tomlinson G, Detsky A S. Composite end points in randomized trials[J]. JAMA, 2010, 303(3): 267.
[6] Shaikh A, Ochani R K, Khan M S, et al. Contribution of individual components to composite end points in contemporary cardiovascular randomized controlled trials[J]. American Heart Journal, 2020, 230: 71-81.
[7] Evans S R, Follmann D. Using outcomes to analyze patients rather than patients to analyze outcomes: A step toward pragmatism in benefit: Risk evaluation[J]. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 2016, 8(4): 386-393.
[8] Montepiedra G, Yuen C M, Rich M L, et al. Totality of outcomes: A different paradigm in assessing interventions for treatment of tuberculosis[J]. Journal of Clinical Tuberculosis and Other Mycobacterial Diseases, 2016, 4: 9-13.
[9] Follmann D, Fay M P, Hamasaki T, et al. Analysis of ordered composite endpoints[J]. Statistics in Medicine, 2020, 39(5): 602-616.
[10] Evans S R, Rubin D, Follmann D, et al. Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) and response adjusted for duration of antibiotic risk (RADAR)[J]. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2015, 61(5): 800-806.
[11] Chen J, Liang Q Q, Chen X Y, et al. Ceftazidime/avibactam versus polymyxin B in the challenge of carbapenemresistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection[J]. Infection and Drug Resistance, 2022, 15: 655-667.
[12] Chow R D, Wankhedkar K P, Mete M. Patients' preferences for selection of endpoints in cardiovascular clinical trials[J]. Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives, 2014, 4(1): 22643.
[13] Thomas M, Fraenkel L, Boonen A, et al. Patient preferences to value health outcomes in rheumatology clinical trials: Report from the OMERACT special interest group[J]. Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, 2021, 51(4): 919-924.
[14] 吴晓蕾, 史梦龙, 张晨瑶, 等. 以患者为中心药物研发相关概念介绍[J]. 中国循证医学杂志, 2023, 23(12): 1472-1477.
[15] Lu Y, Zhao Q, Zou J Y, et al. A composite endpoint for treatment benefit according to patient preference[J]. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 2022, 14(4): 408- 422.
[16] Van Eijk R P A, Van den Berg L H, Lu Y. Composite endpoint for ALS clinical trials based on patient preference: Patient-Ranked Order of Function (PROOF)[J]. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 2022, 93(5): 539-546.
[17] Van Eijk R P A, De Jongh A D, Nikolakopoulos S, et al. An old friend who has overstayed their welcome: The ALSFRS-R total score as primary endpoint for ALS clinical trials[J]. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration, 2021, 22(3/4): 300-307.
[18] Petersiel N, Davis J S, Meagher N, et al. Combination of antistaphylococcal β-lactam with standard therapy compared to standard therapy alone for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: A post hoc analysis of the CAMERA2 trial using a desirability of outcome ranking approach[J]. Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 2024, 11(5): ofae181.
[19] Guidry C A, Chollet-Hinton L, Baker J, et al. Desirability of outcome ranking and response adjusted for antibiotic risk (DOOR/RADAR) post hoc analysis supports equipoise for antibiotic initiation strategies in intensive care unit-acquired pneumonia[J]. Surgical Infections, 2024, 25(3): 221-224.
[20] Howard-Anderson J, Hamasaki T, Dai W X, et al. Improving traditional registrational trial end points: Development and application of a desirability of outcome ranking end point for complicated urinary tract infection clinical trials[J]. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2023, 76(3): e1157-e1165.
[21] Jacobs M A, Schmidt S, Hall D E, et al. A surgical desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) reveals complex relationships between race/ethnicity, insurance type and neighborhood deprivation[J]. Annals of Surgery, 2023, 279(2): 246-257.
[22] Neaton J D, Gray G, Zuckerman B D, et al. Key issues in end point selection for heart failure trials: Composite end points[J]. Journal of Cardiac Failure, 2005, 11(8): 567-575.
[23] Cordoba G, Schwartz L, Woloshin S, et al. Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: Systematic review[J]. BMJ, 2010, 341(183): c3920.
[24] 刘志国, 李海霞, 王蕾, 等. 皮内针调理肝肺法治疗慢性难治性咳嗽的临床效果[J]. 中国医药导报, 2020, 17(30): 173-177.
[25] Yang J W, Wang L Q, Zou X, et al. Effect of acupuncture for postprandial distress syndrome[J]. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2020, 172(12): 777-785.
[26] 胡斌, 马巧琳, 杨帆, 等. 基于真实世界研究方法的医学研究进展[J]. 中医临床研究, 2022, 14(22): 141-145.
[27] 刘保延. 真实世界的中医临床科研范式[J]. 中医杂志, 2013, 54(6): 451-455.
[28] 庄铭, 安佳丽, 钟梦媛, 等. 中医药临床疗效评价方法研究进展[J]. 中国中药杂志, 2023, 48(12): 3263-3268.
[29] 周雪忠, 王世华, 张迪, 等. 构建中医药特色真实世界临床研究新模式的实践与思考[J]. 科技导报, 2023, 41(14): 22-31.
[30] 崔杰, 谈力欣. 辨病、辨证配穴针刺治疗糖尿病周围神经 病变 临床 研究[J]. 河北 中医, 2023, 45(7): 1160- 1163.
Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉

Contact

  • Add：No. 86 Xueyuan South Road, Haidian District, Beijing　 Postal Code：100081
  • Tel: +86-10-62138113　Fax: +86-10-62138113
  • E-mail：kjdbbjb@cast.org.cn

    • Visited

      Total visitors:
      Visitors of today:
      Now online:
    Copyright © Science & Technology Review, All Rights Reserved.