Use of ordinal outcomes in vascular prevention trials: comparison with binary outcomes in published trials

Background and Purpose—Vascular prevention trials mostly count “yes/no” (binary) outcome events, eg, stroke/no stroke. Analysis of ordered categorical vascular events (eg, fatal stroke/nonfatal stroke/no stroke) is clinically relevant and could be more powerful statistically. Although this is not a novel idea in the statistical community, ordinal outcomes have not been applied to stroke prevention trials in the past. Methods—Summary data on stroke, myocardial infarction, combined vascular events, and bleeding were obtained by treatment group from published vascular prevention trials. Data were analyzed using 10 statistical approaches which allow comparison of 2 ordinal or binary treatment groups. The results for each statistical test for each trial were then compared using Friedman 2-way analysis of variance with multiple comparison procedures. Results—Across 85 trials (335 305 subjects) the test results differed substantially so that approaches which used the ordinal nature of stroke events (fatal/nonfatal/no stroke) were more efficient than those which combined the data to form 2 groups (P0.0001). The most efficient tests were bootstrapping the difference in mean rank, Mann–Whitney U test, and ordinal logistic regression; 4- and 5-level data were more efficient still. Similar findings were obtained for myocardial infarction, combined vascular outcomes, and bleeding. The findings were consistent across different types, designs and sizes of trial, and for the different types of intervention. Conclusions—When analyzing vascular events from prevention trials, statistical tests which use ordered categorical data are more efficient and are more likely to yield reliable results than binary tests. This approach gives additional information on treatment effects by severity of event and will allow trials to be smaller. (Stroke. 2008;39:000-000.)

Dipyridamole plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in the secondary prevention after TIA or stroke: a meta-analysis by risk

Objectives: Our aim was to study the effect of combination therapy with aspirin and dipyridamole (A+D) over aspirin alone (ASA) in secondary prevention after transient ischemic attack or minor stroke of presumed arterial origin and to perform subgroup analyses to identify patients that might benefit most from secondary prevention with A+D. Data sources: The previously published meta-analysis of individual patient data was updated with data from ESPRIT (N=2,739); trials without data on the comparison of A+D versus ASA were excluded. Review methods: A meta-analysis was performed using Cox regression, including several subgroup analyses and following baseline risk stratification. Results: A total of 7,612 patients (5 trials) were included in the analyses, 3,800 allocated to A+D and 3,812 to ASA alone. The trial-adjusted hazard ratio for the composite event of vascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke was 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.92). Hazard ratios did not differ in subgroup analyses based on age, sex, qualifying event, hypertension, diabetes, previous stroke, ischemic heart disease, aspirin dose, type of vessel disease and dipyridamole formulation, nor across baseline risk strata as assessed with two different risk scores. A+D were also more effective than ASA alone in preventing recurrent stroke, HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.68 – 0.90). Conclusion: The combination of aspirin and dipyridamole is more effective than aspirin alone in patients with TIA or ischemic stroke of presumed arterial origin in the secondary prevention of stroke and other vascular events. This superiority was found in all subgroups and was independent of baseline risk. ---------------------------7dc3521430776 Content-Disposition: form-data; name="c14_creators_1_name_family" Halkes