Key result
Personalized benefit-risk assessment for vorapaxar showed a consistently positive net clinical benefit across all subgroups, which would remain positive with a 12-fold increase in bleeding risk.
Why the study?
Quantitative benefit-risk assessments have historically been conducted for the average patient rather than individualized to personalize treatment profiles.
Does a personalized benefit-risk assessment combining trial and real-world data identify patient subgroups that benefit most from vorapaxar?
Does a personalized benefit-risk assessment combining trial and real-world data identify patient subgroups that benefit most from vorapaxar?
Personalized benefit-risk assessments combining trial and real-world data are feasible and can identify specific patient subgroups that derive the greatest net clinical benefit from therapies like vorapaxar.
Supports personalized vorapaxar assessments in cohorts; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
PURPOSE: Quantitative benefit-risk (B-R) assessments are used to characterize treatment by combining key benefits and risks into a single metric but have historically been done for the "average" patient. Our aim was to conduct an individualized assessment for the oral antiplatelet vorapaxar by combining trial and real-world data to further personalize the treatment profiles. METHODS: Using linked UK health care databases, we developed risk prediction equations for key ischemic and bleeding events using Cox proportional hazards models. Trial hazard ratios, relative to placebo, were applied to baseline risk estimates to compute expected attributable risks, summed to derive a per-patient net clinical benefit (NCB). High risk subgroups were defined a priori, and Gaussian mixture models (GMM) were fit to characterize the NCB distribution and identify subgroups with similar NCBs. RESULTS: NCB was consistently positive for all subgroups, likely due to the outcome correlation, and would remain positive with a 12-fold increase in bleeding risk. GMMs identified three distinct NCB subgroups. Compared with the middle/lower NCB subgroups, those with a higher NCB tended to be older, female, and have higher CV disease burden. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized B-R assessments are feasible and clinically valuable and can be used to better predict who would benefit most from therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pinto et al. (2019) studied Cardiovascular disease. Vorapaxar vs. Placebo was evaluated on Net clinical benefit (NCB). Personalized benefit-risk assessment for vorapaxar showed a consistently positive net clinical benefit across all subgroups, which would remain positive with a 12-fold increase in bleeding risk.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: