Key result
Renal denervation demonstrated superiority over sham control for a hierarchical endpoint of ambulatory blood pressure, office blood pressure, and medication burden, yielding a win ratio of 2.78.
Why the study?
Given variance among blood pressure measures and medication changes in hypertension trials, a novel prioritised endpoint framework using win ratio methodology was proposed to determine treatment benefit.
Does renal denervation improve a hierarchical endpoint of blood pressure and medication burden in patients with uncontrolled hypertension compared to sham control?
RCT (n=80)
assessor- and patient-blinded, sham-controlled
1:1
Yes
Does renal denervation improve a hierarchical endpoint of blood pressure and medication burden in patients with uncontrolled hypertension compared to sham control?
Effect estimate: Win ratio 2.78 (95% CI 1.58 to 5.48)
p-value: p=<0.001
Applying the win ratio methodology to the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED pilot study demonstrated that renal denervation is superior to sham control when evaluating a hierarchical endpoint of blood pressure and medication burden.
May refine RDN trial endpoints via win ratio; leaves open validation and clinical adoption.
AIMS: Multiple endpoints with varying clinical relevance are available to establish the efficacy of device-based treatments. Given the variance among blood pressure measures and medication changes in hypertension trials, we performed a win ratio analysis of outcomes in a sham-controlled, randomised trial of renal denervation (RDN) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension despite commonly prescribed antihypertensive medications. We propose a novel prioritised endpoint framework for determining the treatment benefit of RDN compared with sham control. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED pilot study data using a prioritised hierarchical endpoint comprised of 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP), office SBP, and medication burden. A generalised pairwise comparisons methodology (win ratio) was extended to examine this endpoint. Clinically relevant thresholds of 5 and 10 mmHg were used for comparisons of ambulatory and office SBP, respectively, and therefore to define treatment "winners" and "losers". For a total number of 1,596 unmatched pairs, the RDN subject was the winner in 1,050 pairs, the RDN subject was the loser in 378 pairs, and 168 pairs were tied. The win ratio in favour of RDN was 2.78 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.58 to 5.48; p<0.001) and corresponding net benefit statistic was 0.42 (95% CI: 0.20 to 0.63). Sensitivity analyses performed with differing blood pressure thresholds and according to drug adherence testing demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: The win ratio method addresses prior limitations by enabling inclusion of more patient-oriented results while prioritising those endpoints considered most clinically important. Applying these methods to the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED pilot study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02439775), RDN was determined to be superior regarding a hierarchical endpoint and a "winner" compared with sham control patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kandzari et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in uncontrolled hypertension (n=80). Renal denervation vs. Sham control was evaluated on Hierarchical endpoint of 24-hour mean ambulatory SBP, office SBP, and medication burden (Win ratio 2.78, 95% CI 1.58 to 5.48, p=<0.001). Renal denervation demonstrated superiority over sham control for a hierarchical endpoint of ambulatory blood pressure, office blood pressure, and medication burden, yielding a win ratio of 2.78.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: