Key result
Higher MARKER-HF score linked to ~48% greater 1-year mortality risk per 0.1 increase.
Why the study?
It was uncertain whether using a risk score to identify a heart failure population at increased mortality risk could improve clinical trial efficiency.
Does the MARKER-HF risk score accurately predict 1-year mortality and improve clinical trial efficiency by reducing required sample sizes in heart failure patients?
Observational (n=24,462)
Yes
Does the MARKER-HF risk score accurately predict 1-year mortality and improve clinical trial efficiency by reducing required sample sizes in heart failure patients?
Effect estimate: HR 1.48 (95% CI 1.44-1.52)
Using the MARKER-HF machine learning risk score to enrich heart failure trial populations can accurately predict mortality and potentially reduce the sample size required to demonstrate clinical benefit.
May aid HF trial enrichment; extends observational validation but leaves open prospective confirmation.
AIMS: Prognostic enrichment strategies can make trials more efficient, although potentially at the cost of diminishing external validity. Whether using a risk score to identify a population at increased mortality risk could improve trial efficiency is uncertain. We aimed to assess whether Machine learning Assessment of RisK and EaRly mortality in Heart Failure (MARKER-HF), a previously validated risk score, could improve clinical trial efficiency. METHODS AND RESULTS: Mortality rates and association of MARKER-HF with all-cause death by 1 year were evaluated in four community-based heart failure (HF) and five HF clinical trial cohorts. Sample size required to assess effects of an investigational therapy on mortality was calculated assuming varying underlying MARKER-HF risk and proposed treatment effect profiles. Patients from community-based HF cohorts (n = 11 297) had higher observed mortality and MARKER-HF scores than did clinical trial patients (n = 13 165) with HF with either reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). MARKER-HF score was strongly associated with risk of 1-year mortality both in the community (hazard ratio [HR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44-1.52) and clinical trial cohorts with HFrEF (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.30-1.54), and HFpEF (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.53-1.98), per 0.1 increase in MARKER-HF. Using MARKER-HF to identify patients for a hypothetical clinical trial assessing mortality reduction with an intervention, enabled a reduction in sample size required to show benefit. CONCLUSION: Using a reliable predictor of mortality such as MARKER-HF to enrich clinical trial populations provides a potential strategy to improve efficiency by requiring a smaller sample size to demonstrate a clinical benefit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jering et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Heart failure (n=24,462). MARKER-HF risk score was evaluated on All-cause death by 1 year (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.44-1.52). The MARKER-HF risk score was strongly associated with 1-year mortality in community heart failure cohorts (HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.44-1.52 per 0.1 increase), enabling reduced sample sizes for future trials.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: