A post hoc analysis of the PARADISE-MI trial, although not intended to alter the conclusions generated by the published data, suggests that clinically relevant benefits were obscured, providing the basis for recommending different analyses for future studies that are more suited to capture the most clinically significant endpoints.
“What these data show us is that we need clinical trial designs moving towards more pragmatic information that better reflect clinical practice,” reported Otavio Berwanger, MD, PhD, director of the Academic Research Organization at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil.
Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News
Dr. Otavio Berwanger
The reevaluation of the PARADISE-MI data, presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Barcelona, was based on a win ratio analysis and on the inclusion of investigator-reported endpoints, not just adjudicated events. Both appear to reveal clinically meaningful benefits not reflected in the published study, according to Dr. Berwanger.
In PARADISE-MI, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year, more than 5,500 patients were randomized to the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan or the ACE inhibitor ramipril after a myocardial infarction. A reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pulmonary congestion, or both were required for enrollment.
For the primary composite outcomes of death from cardiovascular (CV) causes or incident heart failure, the ARNI had a 10% numerical advantage, but it did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; P = .17).
“PARADISE-MI was a neutral trial. This post hoc analysis will not change that result,” Dr. Berwanger emphasized. However, the post hoc analysis does provide a basis for exploring why conventional trial designs might not be providing answers that are relevant and helpful for clinical practice.
New analysis provides positive trial result
When the data from PARADISE-MI are reevaluated in a hierarchical win ratio analysis with CV death serving as the most severe and important outcome, the principal conclusion changes. Whether events are reevaluated in this format by the clinical events committee (CEC) or by investigators, there is a greater number of total wins than total losses for the ARNI. Combined, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a win ratio of 1.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.33; P = 0.015) over ramipril.
Using a sports analogy, Dr. Berwanger explained that the win ratio analysis divides the total number of wins to the total number of losses to provide a much more clinically relevant approach to keeping score. It also used a hierarchical analysis so that the most serious and important events are considered first.
In addition to CV death, this analysis included first hospitalization for heart failure and first outpatient heart failure events. CEC-defined events and events reported by investigators were evaluated separately.
The ARNI had more wins than losses in every category for all outcomes, whether CEC adjudicated or investigator reported, but most of this benefit was generated by the endpoint of CEC-adjudicated CV deaths. This accounted for 36.9% of all events (investigator-documented CV death accounted for 0.7%). This is important because PARADISE-MI, like many standard trials, was conducted on a time-to-primary event basis.
“In this type of analysis, the first event is what counts. Usually time-to-first-event analyses are dominated by nonfatal events,” Dr. Berwanger explained. He believes that placing more weight on the most serious events results in an emphasis on what outcomes are of greatest clinical interest.
In addition, Dr. Berwanger argued that it is important to consider investigator-reported events, not just CEC-adjudicated events. While adjudicated events improve the rigor of the data, Dr. Berwanger suggested it omits outcomes with which clinicians are most concerned.