Restricted mean survival time for the analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials assessing non-inferiority: Case studies from antihyperglycemic drug development.

Cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have been employed in multiple therapeutic areas to explore whether a noncardiovascular drug increases the risk for cardiovascular events. These studies are now a central part of drug development programs for antihyperglycemic drugs. These programs are expected to demonstrate that new antihyperglycemic drugs for patients with Type 2 diabetes do not have unacceptable cardiovascular risk. The hazard ratio, which is usually provided as evidence that patients receiving the investigational treatment are not at statistically significantly greater cardiovascular risk than patients on the control treatment, can be difficult to interpret for various reasons. Therefore, an alternative approach known as the Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) or τ-year mean survival time is presented, and its ability to overcome interpretation challenges with the hazard ratio discussed. The RMST approach is applied to five completed CVOTs and is compared with the corresponding hazard ratios. Additionally, detailed considerations are given on how to design a non-inferiority CVOT using the RMST approach. The RMST methodology is shown to be a practical alternative to the hazard ratio methodology for designing a non-inferiority CVOT.

ODYSSEY FH I and FH II: 78 week results with alirocumab treatment in 735 patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia.

AIMS: To assess long-term (78 weeks) alirocumab treatment in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HeFH) and inadequate LDL-C control on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). METHODS AND RESULTS: In two randomized, double-blind studies (ODYSSEY FH I, n = 486; FH II, n = 249), patients were randomized 2 : 1 to alirocumab 75 mg or placebo every 2 weeks (Q2W). Alirocumab dose was increased at Week 12 to 150 mg Q2W if Week 8 LDL-C was ≥1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL). Primary endpoint (both studies) was percentage change in calculated LDL-C from baseline to Week 24. Mean LDL-C levels decreased from 3.7 mmol/L (144.7 mg/dL) at baseline to 1.8 mmol/L (71.3 mg/dL; -57.9% vs. placebo) at Week 24 in patients randomized to alirocumab in FH I and from 3.5 mmol/L (134.6 mg/dL) to 1.8 mmol/L (67.7 mg/dL; -51.4% vs. placebo) in FH II (P < 0.0001). These reductions were maintained through Week 78. LDL-C <1.8 mmol/L (regardless of cardiovascular risk) was achieved at Week 24 by 59.8 and 68.2% of alirocumab-treated patients in FH I and FH II, respectively. Adverse events resulted in discontinuation in 3.4% of alirocumab-treated patients in FH I (vs. 6.1% placebo) and 3.6% (vs. 1.2%) in FH II. Rate of injection site reactions in alirocumab-treated patients was 12.4% in FH I and 11.4% in FH II (vs. 11.0 and 7.4% with placebo). CONCLUSION: In patients with HeFH and inadequate LDL-C control at baseline despite maximally tolerated statin ± other LLT, alirocumab treatment resulted in significant LDL-C lowering and greater achievement of LDL-C target levels and was well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Cinicaltrials.gov (identifiers: NCT01623115; NCT01709500).

Centralized adjudication of cardiovascular end points in cardiovascular and noncardiovascular pharmacologic trials: a report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium.

This white paper provides a summary of presentations and discussions at a cardiovascular (CV) end point adjudication think tank cosponsored by the Cardiac Safety Research Committee and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that was convened at the FDA's White Oak headquarters on November 6, 2013. Attention was focused on the lack of clarity concerning the need for end point adjudication in both CV and non-CV trials: there is currently an absence of widely accepted academic or industry standards and a definitive regulatory policy on how best to structure and use clinical end point committees (CECs). This meeting therefore provided a forum for leaders in the fields of CV clinical trials and CV safety to develop a foundation of initial best practice recommendations for use in future CEC charters. Attendees included representatives from pharmaceutical companies, regulatory agencies, end point adjudication specialist groups, clinical research organizations, and active, academically based adjudicators. The manuscript presents recommendations from the think tank regarding when CV end point adjudication should be considered in trials conducted by cardiologists and by noncardiologists as well as detailing key issues in the composition of a CEC and its charter. In addition, it presents several recommended best practices for the establishment and operation of CECs. The science underlying CV event adjudication is evolving, and suggestions for additional areas of research will be needed to continue to advance this science. This manuscript does not constitute regulatory guidance.

Clinical Development Approaches and Statistical Methodologies to Prospectively Assess the Cardiovascular Risk of New Antidiabetic Therapies for Type 2 Diabetes.

In December 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a guidance for industry requiring sponsors to demonstrate that a new antidiabetic therapy being developed to treat type 2 diabetes does not increase cardiovascular (CV) risk to an unacceptable extent. CV events reported during phase 2 and phase 3 trials should be prospectively and independently adjudicated. Before submission of a new drug application or biologics license application, sponsors should compare the incidence of major CV events occurring with the investigational agent versus the control group to show that the upper bound of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the estimated risk ratio is less than 1.8. If the CI includes 1.3, a postmarketing trial will be necessary to definitively show that the upper bound of the 95% CI for the estimated risk ratio is then less than 1.3. In 2012, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued an updated guideline on the clinical investigation of medicinal products in the treatment or prevention of diabetes mellitus that detailed its CV safety assessment requirements. Although similar to the FDA guidance, the EMA guideline does not prospectively define any pre- or postapproval risk margins. This expert perspective, prepared by members of the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, discusses clinical development strategies, operational issues, and statistical methodological issues to satisfy the FDA's CV safety requirements, and, where appropriate, the EMA guideline. Actual case examples, where applicable, are presented.

Effects of the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide on ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus, are associated with small reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and increases in heart rate. However, findings based on clinic measurements do not adequately assess a drug's 24-hour pharmacodynamic profile. The effects of dulaglutide, a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, on BP and heart rate were investigated using ambulatory BP monitoring. Patients (n=755; 56±10 years; 81% white; 48% women), with type 2 diabetes mellitus, taking ≥1 oral antihyperglycemic medication, with a clinic BP between 90/60 and 140/90 mm Hg were randomized to dulaglutide (1.5 or 0.75 mg) or placebo subcutaneously for 26 weeks. Ambulatory BP monitoring was performed at baseline and at 4, 16, and 26 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline to week 16 in mean 24-hour SBP, a tree gatekeeping strategy compared the effects of dulaglutide to placebo. Both doses of dulaglutide were noninferior to placebo for changes in 24-hour SBP and diastolic blood pressure, and dulaglutide 1.5 mg significantly reduced SBP (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval]), -2.8 mm Hg [-4.6, -1.0]; P≤0.001). Dulaglutide 0.75 mg was noninferior to placebo (1.6 bpm; [0.3, 2.9]; P≤0.02) for 24-hour heart rate (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval]), but dulaglutide 1.5 mg was not (2.8 bpm [1.5, 4.2]). Dulaglutide 1.5 mg was associated with a reduction in 24-hour SBP and an increase in 24-hour heart rate. The mechanisms responsible for the observed effects remain to be clarified.

The evaluation and management of drug effects on cardiac conduction (PR and QRS intervals) in clinical development.

Recent advances in electrocardiographic monitoring and waveform analysis have significantly improved the ability to detect drug-induced changes in cardiac repolarization manifested as changes in the QT/corrected QT interval. These advances have also improved the ability to detect drug-induced changes in cardiac conduction. This White Paper summarizes current opinion, reached by consensus among experts at the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, on the assessment of electrocardiogram-based safety measurements of the PR and QRS intervals, representing atrioventricular and ventricular conduction, respectively, during drug development.

Operational challenges and solutions with implementation of an adaptive seamless phase 2/3 study.

A wide variety of operational issues were encountered with the planning and implementation of an adaptive, dose-finding, seamless phase 2/3 trial for a diabetes therapeutic. Compared with a conventional design, significant upfront planning was required, as well as earlier, more integrated cross-functional coordination. The existing infrastructure necessitated greater flexibility to meet the needs of the adaptive design. Rapid data acquisition, analysis, and reporting were essential to support the successful implementation of the adaptive algorithm. Drug supply for nine treatment arms had to be carefully managed across many sites worldwide. Details regarding these key operational challenges and others will be discussed along with resolutions taken to enable successful implementation of this adaptive, seamless trial.

Application of adaptive design methodology in development of a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 analog (dulaglutide): statistical design and simulations.

BACKGROUND: Dulaglutide (dula, LY2189265), a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 analog, is being developed to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: To foster the development of dula, we designed a two-stage adaptive, dose-finding, inferentially seamless phase 2/3 study. The Bayesian theoretical framework is used to adaptively randomize patients in stage 1 to 7 dula doses and, at the decision point, to either stop for futility or to select up to 2 dula doses for stage 2. After dose selection, patients continue to be randomized to the selected dula doses or comparator arms. Data from patients assigned the selected doses will be pooled across both stages and analyzed with an analysis of covariance model, using baseline hemoglobin A1c and country as covariates. The operating characteristics of the trial were assessed by extensive simulation studies. RESULTS: Simulations demonstrated that the adaptive design would identify the correct doses 88% of the time, compared to as low as 6% for a fixed-dose design (the latter value based on frequentist decision rules analogous to the Bayesian decision rules for adaptive design). CONCLUSIONS: This article discusses the decision rules used to select the dula dose(s); the mathematical details of the adaptive algorithm-including a description of the clinical utility index used to mathematically quantify the desirability of a dose based on safety and efficacy measurements; and a description of the simulation process and results that quantify the operating characteristics of the design.

An adaptive, dose-finding, seamless phase 2/3 study of a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 analog (dulaglutide): trial design and baseline characteristics.

Dulaglutide (dula, LY2189265) is a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 analog in development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. An adaptive, dose-finding, inferentially seamless phase 2/3 study was designed to support the development of this novel diabetes therapeutic. The study is divided into two stages based on two randomization schemes: a Bayesian adaptive scheme (stage 1) and a fixed scheme (stage 2). Stage 1 of the trial employs an adaptive, dose-finding design to lead to a dula dose-selection decision or early study termination due to futility. If dose selection occurs, the study proceeds to stage 2 to allow continued evaluation of the selected dula doses. At completion, the entire study will serve as a confirmatory phase 3 trial. The final study design is discussed, along with specifics pertaining to the actual execution of this study and selected baseline characteristics of the participants.

Electrocardiographic assessment for therapeutic proteins--scientific discussion.

Electrocardiographic monitoring is an integral component of the clinical assessment of cardiac safety of all compounds in development. The International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use E14 guideline recommends a dedicated study to evaluate drug-induced effects on cardiac repolarization ("thorough QT/QTc study"). There has been limited published information on QT interval changes secondary to therapeutic proteins; however, in theory, biologic therapies may affect cardiac electrical activity either directly or indirectly. This article summarizes scientific discussions of members of the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium and includes possible approaches to consider for the clinical evaluation of drug-induced QT prolongation in development programs of therapeutic proteins.

Effects of the selective estrogen receptor modulator raloxifene on coronary outcomes in the Raloxifene Use for The Heart trial: results of subgroup analyses by age and other factors.

BACKGROUND: The Raloxifene Use for The Heart (RUTH) trial showed that raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, had no overall effect on the incidence of coronary events in women with established coronary heart disease or coronary heart disease risk factors. We provide detailed results of the effect of raloxifene on coronary outcomes over time and for 24 subgroups (17 predefined, 7 post hoc). METHODS AND RESULTS: Postmenopausal women (n=10 101; mean age, 67 years) were randomized to raloxifene 60 mg/d or placebo for a median of 5.6 years. Coronary outcomes were assessed by treatment group in women with coronary heart disease risk factors and those with established coronary heart disease. Raloxifene had no effect on the incidence of coronary events in any subgroup except in the case of a post hoc age subgroup analysis using age categories defined in the Women's Health Initiative randomized trials. The effect of raloxifene on the incidence of coronary events differed significantly by age (interaction P=0.0118). The incidence of coronary events in women <60 years of age was significantly lower in those assigned raloxifene (50 events) compared with placebo (84 events; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.83; P=0.003; absolute risk reduction, 36 per 1000 women treated for 1 year). No difference was found between treatment groups in the incidence of coronary events in women > or =60 and <70 or > or =70 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women at increased risk of coronary events, the overall lack of benefit of raloxifene was similar across the prespecified subgroups.

Effect of raloxifene on stroke and venous thromboembolism according to subgroups in postmenopausal women at increased risk of coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, reduces risk of invasive breast cancer and osteoporosis, but the effect on risk for stroke and venous thromboembolism in different patient subgroups is not established. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the effect of raloxifene on the incidence of all strokes, stroke deaths, and venous thromboembolic events according to participant subgroups. METHODS: This was a secondary end point analysis of an international, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of 10 101 postmenopausal women with or at increased risk of coronary heart disease followed a median of 5.6 years. Strokes, venous thromboembolic events, and deaths were adjudicated by expert centralized committees. Strokes were categorized as ischemic, hemorrhagic, or undetermined and venous thromboembolic events were subclassified. RESULTS: The incidences of all strokes did not differ between raloxifene (incidence rate per 100 woman-years=0.95) and placebo (incidence rate=0.86) treatment groups (P=0.30). In women assigned raloxifene versus placebo, there was a higher incidence of fatal strokes (incidence rates=0.22 and 0.15, respectively, P=0.0499) and venous thromboembolic events (incidence rates=0.39 and 0.27, respectively, P=0.02). No significant subgroup interactions were found except that there was a higher incidence of stroke associated with raloxifene use among current smokers. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women at increased risk for coronary events, the incidences of venous thromboembolism and fatal stroke but not all strokes were higher in those assigned raloxifene versus placebo. Raloxifene's effect did not differ across subgroups, except that the risk of stroke differed by smoking status. Treatment decisions about raloxifene should be based on a balance of projected absolute risks and benefits.

Reduced incidence of invasive breast cancer with raloxifene among women at increased coronary risk.

BACKGROUND: In the Raloxifene Use for The Heart trial, 10 101 postmenopausal women with coronary heart disease (CHD) or multiple CHD risk factors were randomly assigned to 60 mg/d raloxifene or to placebo and followed for a median of 5.6 years. Raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, was found to reduce the risk of invasive breast cancer and vertebral fractures but not the risk of cardiovascular events. Here, we provide further details about breast cancer incidence by tumor characteristics, duration of treatment, and subgroup. METHODS: Reported breast cancer was adjudicated by an independent committee based on medical records and pathology reports. The primary analyses used Cox proportional hazards models with time to first breast cancer as the outcome. Subgroup effects were analyzed using similar models with terms for treatment by subgroup. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: As previously reported, raloxifene reduced the incidence of invasive breast cancer by 44% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38 to 0.83; absolute risk reduction = 1.2 invasive breast cancers per 1000 women treated for 1 year). The lower incidence of invasive breast cancer reflected a 55% lower incidence of invasive estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors (HR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.28 to 0.72). However, raloxifene treatment did not reduce the incidence of noninvasive breast cancer or of invasive ER-negative breast cancer. The reduced incidence of invasive breast cancer was similar across subgroups, including those defined by age, body mass index, family history of breast cancer, prior use of postmenopausal hormones, and 5-year estimated risk of invasive breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Raloxifene reduces risk of invasive ER-positive breast cancer regardless of a woman's baseline breast cancer risk but does not reduce risk of noninvasive or ER-negative breast cancers. These results confirm those of the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation, a previous randomized trial among women with osteoporosis.

A commonly occurring polymorphism upstream of the estrogen receptor alpha alters transcription and is associated with increased HDL.

OBJECTIVE: Given the role of estrogen in the regulation of lipid metabolism, we screened for functional polymorphisms in the estrogen receptor alpha (ER*), and examined for their influence on serum cholesterol. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified a novel C>T polymorphism (ERNE-145), with a minor allele frequency of 41%. This polymorphism was immediately adjacent to a putative glucocorticoid receptor (GR) binding site, which we showed to be functional by electrophoretic mobility shift analysis. The C allele was associated with glucocorticoid-induced reduction in promoter activity compared to control in luciferase reporter studies (p<0.05; n=7). This effect was abolished by the T allele. To investigate the functional significance of ERNE-145, its association with serum cholesterol levels was examined in 1662 post-menopausal women enrolled in the RUTH trial. ERNE-145 genotype (p=0.001), BMI (p<0.001), diabetes mellitus (p<0.001), and ethnicity (p=0.002) were significantly associated with HDL cholesterol. ERNE-145 genotype explained 8.2% of the variability of HDL: each copy of the variant T allele was associated with a 0.041 mmol/L (CI 0.017-0.066) increase in HDL. CONCLUSION: A novel polymorphism upstream of ER* abolished negative transcriptional regulation by an adjacent GR binding sequence, and was strongly associated with HDL levels in a large cohort of post-menopausal women.

Effects of raloxifene on cardiovascular events and breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: The effect of raloxifene, a selective estrogen-receptor modulator, on coronary heart disease (CHD) and breast cancer is not established. METHODS: We randomly assigned 10,101 postmenopausal women (mean age, 67.5 years) with CHD or multiple risk factors for CHD to 60 mg of raloxifene daily or placebo and followed them for a median of 5.6 years. The two primary outcomes were coronary events (i.e., death from coronary causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome) and invasive breast cancer. RESULTS: As compared with placebo, raloxifene had no significant effect on the risk of primary coronary events (533 vs. 553 events; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.84 to 1.07), and it reduced the risk of invasive breast cancer (40 vs. 70 events; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.83; absolute risk reduction, 1.2 invasive breast cancers per 1000 women treated for one year); the benefit was primarily due to a reduced risk of estrogen-receptor-positive invasive breast cancers. There was no significant difference in the rates of death from any cause or total stroke according to group assignment, but raloxifene was associated with an increased risk of fatal stroke (59 vs. 39 events; hazard ratio, 1.49; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.00 to 2.24; absolute risk increase, 0.7 per 1000 woman-years) and venous thromboembolism (103 vs. 71 events; hazard ratio, 1.44; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.06 to 1.95; absolute risk increase, 1.2 per 1000 woman-years). Raloxifene reduced the risk of clinical vertebral fractures (64 vs. 97 events; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.47 to 0.89; absolute risk reduction, 1.3 per 1000). CONCLUSIONS: Raloxifene did not significantly affect the risk of CHD. The benefits of raloxifene in reducing the risks of invasive breast cancer and vertebral fracture should be weighed against the increased risks of venous thromboembolism and fatal stroke. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00190593 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Effect of raloxifene on cardiovascular adverse events in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

The impact of selective estrogen receptor modulators on cardiovascular disease outcomes in postmenopausal women remains unclear. This analysis assessed the effect of raloxifene on the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events in postmenopausal women followed for < or =8 years as participants in a 4-year osteoporosis treatment trial and a subsequent 4-year follow-up trial. The Continuing Outcomes Relevant to Evista (CORE) trial, designed to determine the effect of raloxifene on the incidence of invasive breast cancer, was a 4-year follow-up study to the 4-year Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) osteoporosis treatment trial. Of the 7,705 participants originally enrolled in MORE, 4,011 were enrolled in CORE and thus participated in both trials (MORE-CORE participants). The incidence of serious cardiovascular (i.e., coronary and cerebrovascular) adverse events during 8 years, confirmed by external adjudication in the 2 trials, was compared between treatment groups using Cox proportional hazards models. The 8-year incidence of serious cardiovascular adverse events did not differ significantly between the raloxifene (5.5%) and placebo (4.7%) groups (hazard ratio [HR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86 to 1.56). Similar results were obtained when coronary (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.83) or cerebrovascular (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.84) events were analyzed separately, and when cardiovascular events were analyzed in the 459 MORE-CORE participants who were at increased risk of cardiovascular events by previously established criteria (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.82). In conclusion, we found no evidence of a beneficial or harmful effect of raloxifene on the incidence of cardiovascular events overall, or coronary or cerebrovascular events, in postmenopausal osteoporotic women at relatively low risk of cardiovascular events.

Baseline characteristics of menopausal women with coronary heart disease in cardiovascular outcomes clinical trials of menopausal hormone therapy or raloxifene.

Despite differences in enrollment criteria, the baseline characteristics of the menopausal women with coronary heart disease enrolled in the cardiovascular outcome trials of menopausal hormone therapy or raloxifene are remarkably similar. Globally, cardiovascular risk factors were not optimally controlled at entry into these trials. More aggressive cardiovascular risk factor interventions are requisite to achieve optimal target goals for women with documented coronary heart disease.

Relationship between osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease in postmenopausal women.

UNLABELLED: In the placebo group of the MORE study, including 2576 postmenopausal women (mean age, 66.5 years), the authors describe a strong linear association between the severity grade of osteoporosis (from low BMD to presence of severe vertebral fractures) and the future risk of cardiovascular events. Accordingly, treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis should include consideration of measures to prevent adverse cardiovascular outcomes. INTRODUCTION: Observations indicate an inverse association between BMD and the severity of peripheral atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women. The predictive value of osteoporosis and its different severity stages for the risk of acute cardiovascular events remains unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were 2576 women (mean age, 66.5 years) assigned to placebo and followed for 4 years in an osteoporosis treatment trial. Those with at least one vertebral fracture or total hip BMD T score < or = -2.5 at baseline were defined as having osteoporosis, whereas those without vertebral fracture and total hip BMD T score between -2.5 and -1 were defined as having low bone mass. The primary outcome for these posthoc analyses was the incidence of adjudicated fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular events. RESULTS: After adjustment for potential confounders, women with osteoporosis had a 3.9-fold (95% CI, 2.0-7.7; p < 0.001) increased risk for cardiovascular events compared with women with low bone mass. Under the same boundaries, a total hip BMD T score < or = -2.5 versus a T score between -2.5 and -1 was associated with a 2.1-fold (95% CI, 1.2-3.6; p < 0.01) increase in risk, whereas presence of at least one vertebral fracture versus no vertebral fracture at baseline was associated with a 3.0-fold (95% CI, 1.8-5.1; p < 0.001) increase in risk. The risk of cardiovascular events increased incrementally with the number and increasing severity of baseline vertebral fractures (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis are at an increased risk for cardiovascular events that is proportional to the severity of osteoporosis at the time of the diagnosis. Treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis should include consideration of measures to prevent cardiovascular outcomes.

Risk-benefit profile for raloxifene: 4-year data From the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) randomized trial.

UNLABELLED: Posthoc analysis of the MORE osteoporosis treatment trial assessed risk-benefit profile of raloxifene in 7705 postmenopausal women. A major disease outcomes global index resulted in annual rates of 1.39% and 1.83% in the raloxifene and placebo groups, respectively (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92), compatible with a favorable risk-benefit profile for raloxifene for treating postmenopausal osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION: The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial reported overall risks that exceeded benefits from use of estrogen-progestin in healthy postmenopausal women. The objective of this posthoc analysis of the Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) trial was to assess the safety profile of raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator indicated for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, using the global index method from the WHI trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 7705 postmenopausal women (mean age, 67 years) were enrolled in the MORE osteoporosis treatment trial and randomly assigned to receive placebo or one of two doses of raloxifene (60 or 120 mg/day) for 4 years. A global index of clinical outcomes, defined as described for the WHI trial (the earliest occurrence of coronary heart disease, stroke, pulmonary embolism, invasive breast cancer, endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, hip fracture, or death because of other causes) was applied to the MORE trial data. Physicians blinded to treatment assignment adjudicated events. Intention-to-treat survival analysis of time-to-first-event was performed using a proportional hazards model. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The annualized rate of global index events was 1.83% in the placebo group and 1.39% in the combined raloxifene dose groups (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92). Analyzing individual dose groups separately yielded the same results (HR for 60 mg/day, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.96: HR for 120 mg/day, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95). Subgroup analyses showed no significant interactions between age or hysterectomy status and the effect of raloxifene on the global index (interaction p > 0.1), whereas the global index risk reduction seemed to be greater in obese women compared with nonobese women (interaction p = 0.03). The significant 25% reduction in global index is compatible with a favorable risk-benefit safety profile when raloxifene is used for osteoporosis treatment in postmenopausal women. These results require confirmation in ongoing clinical trials.