Suppr超能文献

钠-葡萄糖共转运蛋白 2 抑制剂和胰高血糖素样肽-1 受体激动剂的心血管作用:P 值及其他。

Cardiovascular effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: The P value and beyond.

机构信息

Diabetes Research Centre, Leicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.

Leicester Real World Evidence Unit, Leicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.

出版信息

Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021 Jul;23(7):1685-1691. doi: 10.1111/dom.14384. Epub 2021 May 5.

Abstract

Despite growing awareness of the dangers of a dichotomous interpretation of trial results based on the 'statistical significance' of a treatment effect, the uptake of new approaches has been slow in diabetes medicine. We showcase a number of ways to interpret the evidence for a treatment effect applied to the cardiovascular outcome trials of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is): the P value function (or confidence curves), which depicts the treatment effect across the whole spectrum of confidence levels; the counternull value, which is the hazard ratio (i.e. treatment effect size) supported by the same amount of evidence as the null value (i.e. no treatment effect); and the S value, which quantifies the strength of the evidence against the null hypothesis in terms of the number of coin tosses yielding the same side. We show how this approach identifies potential treatment effects, highlights similarities among trials straddling the threshold of statistical significance, and quantifies differences in the strength of the evidence from trials reporting statistically significant results. For example, while REWIND, CANVAS and CREDENCE failed to reach statistical significance at the .05 level for all-cause mortality, their counternull values indicate that reduced death rates by 19%, 24% and 31%, respectively, are supported by the same amount of evidence as that indicating no treatment effect. Moreover, similarities among results emerge in trials of GLP-1RAs (REWIND, EXSCEL and LEADER) lying closely around the threshold of 'statistical significance'. Lastly, several S values, such as for the primary outcome in HARMONY Outcomes (S value 10.9) and all-cause death in EMPAREG-OUTCOME (S value 15.0), stand out compared with values for other outcomes and other trials, suggesting much larger differences in the evidence between these studies and several others that cluster around the .05 significance threshold. P value functions, counternull values and S values should complement the standard reporting of the treatment effect to help interpret clinical trials and make decisions among competing glucose-lowering medications.

摘要

尽管人们越来越意识到基于治疗效果“统计学显著性”对试验结果进行二分法解释的危险,但在糖尿病医学中,新方法的采用一直缓慢。我们展示了几种解释治疗效果证据的方法,这些方法适用于胰高血糖素样肽-1 受体激动剂 (GLP-1RA) 和钠-葡萄糖共转运蛋白 2 抑制剂 (SGLT-2i) 的心血管结局试验:P 值函数(或置信曲线),它描绘了整个置信度范围内的治疗效果;反零值,即与零值(即无治疗效果)相同证据支持的危险比(即治疗效果大小);以及 S 值,它根据产生相同结果的抛硬币次数来量化对零假设的证据强度。我们展示了这种方法如何识别潜在的治疗效果,突出跨越统计学显著性阈值的试验之间的相似性,并量化报告统计学显著结果的试验中证据强度的差异。例如,尽管 REWIND、CANVAS 和 CREDENCE 在全因死亡率方面均未达到.05 水平的统计学显著性,但它们的反零值表明,死亡率分别降低了 19%、24%和 31%,与表明无治疗效果的证据量相同。此外,在 GLP-1RA 试验(REWIND、EXSCEL 和 LEADER)中出现了结果相似性,这些试验接近“统计学显著性”的阈值。最后,与其他试验和其他结果相比,HARMONY Outcomes 的主要结局(S 值 10.9)和 EMPAREG-OUTCOME 的全因死亡(S 值 15.0)等几个 S 值非常突出,表明这些研究与其他几个围绕.05 显著性阈值的研究之间的证据差异要大得多。P 值函数、反零值和 S 值应该补充治疗效果的标准报告,以帮助解释临床试验并在竞争的降血糖药物之间做出决策。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验