When and How Can Endpoints Be Changed after Initiation of a Randomized Clinical Trial?

Endpoints are outcome measures used to address the objectives of a clinical trial. The primary endpoint is the most important outcome and is used to assess the primary objective of a trial (e.g., the variable used to compare the effect difference of two treatment groups). A fundamental principle in the design of randomized trials involves setting out in advance the endpoints that will be assessed in the trial [1], as failure to prespecify endpoints can introduce bias into a trial and creates opportunities for manipulation. However, sometimes new information may come to light that could merit changes to endpoints during the course of a trial. This new information might include, for example, results from other trials or identification of better biomarkers or surrogate outcome measures. Such changes can allow incorporation of up-to-date knowledge into the trial design. However, changes to endpoints can also compromise the scientific integrity of a trial. Here I discuss some of the issues and decision-making processes that should be considered when evaluating whether to make changes to endpoints, and discuss the documentation and reporting of clinical trials that have revised endpoints.

[1]  G. Murray,et al.  PROactive study , 2006, The Lancet.

[2]  M. Wilcox,et al.  Measurement of toxin production by Clostridium difficile , 2006, The Lancet.

[3]  P. Guillausseau PROactive study , 2006, The Lancet.

[4]  Erland Erdmann,et al.  Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial , 2005, The Lancet.

[5]  D. Altman,et al.  Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research , 2004, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[6]  John Dormandy,et al.  The prospective pioglitazone clinical trial in macrovascular events (PROactive): can pioglitazone reduce cardiovascular events in diabetes? Study design and baseline characteristics of 5238 patients. , 2004, Diabetes care.

[7]  A. Hrõbjartsson,et al.  Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. , 2004, JAMA.

[8]  J. Wittes On changing a long‐term clinical trial midstream , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  C. Hawkey Journals should see original protocols for clinical trials , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  Post Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Trial Investigators The effect of aggressive lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and low-dose anticoagulation on obstructive changes in saphenous-vein coronary-artery bypass grafts. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  D. DeMets,et al.  Issues in the early termination of the aspirin component of the Physicians' Health Study. Data Monitoring Board of the Physicians' Health Study. , 1991, Annals of epidemiology.

[12]  F E Young,et al.  The preliminary report of the findings of the aspirin component of the ongoing Physicians' Health Study. The FDA perspective on aspirin for the primary prevention of myocardial infarction. , 1988, JAMA.