Meta-analysis of cardiovascular superiority trials published in the New England Journal of Medicine to elucidate the concept of superiority margin.

Postgraduate Medical Journal
Nanda GamadSamir Malhotra

Abstract

To show that overpowered trials claim statistical significance detouring clinical relevance and warrant the need of superiority margin to avoid such misinterpretation. 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. 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. 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, I2=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 studie...Continue Reading

Related Concepts

Related Feeds

Cardiovascular Disease Pathophysiology

Cardiovascular disease involves several different processes that contribute to the pathological mechanism, including hyperglycemia, inflammation, atherosclerosis, hypertension and more. Vasculature stability plays a critical role in the development of the disease. Discover the latest research on cardiovascular disease pathophysiology here.