Meta-analysis of cardiovascular superiority trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine to elucidate the concept of superiority margin. Issue 1146 (10th March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gamad, Nanda; Shafiq, Nusrat; Malhotra, Samir
• Is Part Of: Postgraduate medical journal. Volume 97:Issue 1146(2021)
• Page Start: 227
• Page End: 233
• Publication Date: 2020-03-10
• Subjects: clinical pharmacology -- cardiology -- clinical trials -- overpowered trials; Medicine -- Periodicals; 610
• DOI: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2019-136569
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0032-5473

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Objective: To show that overpowered trials claim statistical significance detouring clinical relevance and warrant the need of superiority margin to avoid such misinterpretation. Design: Selective review of articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2018 and meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods: Published superiority trials evaluating cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus with positive efficacy outcome were eligible. Fixed effects meta-analysis was performed using RevMan V.5.3 to calculate overall effect estimate, pooled HR and it was compared with mean clinically significant difference. Results: Thirteen eligible trials with 164 721 participants provided the quantitative data for this review. Largely, the primary efficacy endpoint in these trials was the composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalisation, coronary revascularisation and fatal or non-fatal stroke. The pooled HR was 0.86 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.89, I 2 =45%) which was lower than the mean clinically significant difference of 0.196 (19.6%, range: 0.09375–0.35) of these studies. There was a wide 95% CI in these studies from 0.56 to 0.99. The upper margin of CI in most of the studies was close to the line of no difference. Absolute risk reduction was small (1.19% to 2.3%) translating to a high median number needed to treat of 63 (range: 43 to 84) over a follow-up duration of 2.95 years. Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis indicate that overpowered trials give statistically significant results undermining clinical relevance. To avoid such misuse of current statistical tools, there is a need to derive superiority margin. We hope to generate debate on considering clinically significant difference, used to calculate sample size, as superiority margin.