Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024
The Consideration of Appropriate Surrogate Endpoint in Premarket Clinical Trials of Drug-Coated Balloon Catheter for the Treatment of Femoropopliteal Artery Stenosis
Most clinical trials of drug-coated balloon (DCB) for the treatment of femoropopliteal artery stenosis chose 12-month primary patency rate (PPR) or 6-month late lumen loss (LLL) as the primary endpoint. It is still debatable whether 6-month LLL can be served as an appropriate surrogate endpoint for 12-month PPR. This study aimed to identify whether LLL can serve as an appropriate surrogate endpoint in peripheral DCB clinical trials, and shed light on the selection of primary outcome for subsequent confirmatory clinical trials of DCB in the treatment of femoropopliteal artery stenosis.
Materials and Methods:
The linear regression model was used to evaluate the correlation between 12-month PPR and 6-month LLL. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) and relative gain between the DCB and plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) group were computed to assess the consistency and surrogacy, using fixed or random effect model as appropriate. The coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated for both endpoints to compare their degree of variation overall and at study level.
Results:
A total of 34 studies are eligible for this study. A significant negative linear correlation was found between 12-month PPR and 6-month LLL (R2=0.67, slope=–0.309, p=0.007). The SMD (DCB-POBA) of LLL and PPR was –0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI]: –0.98, –0.54), and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.46, 0.72) (p=0.18). The pooled relative gain of PPR (43%, 95% CI: 35%, 50%) was significantly lower than that of LLL (72%, 95% CI: 61%, 84%) (p<0.001). Coefficient of variation of LLL was larger than that of PPR overall in DCB and POBA groups.
Conclusion:
Although a significant moderate correlation was observed between 12-month PPR and 6-month LLL, PPR shows more conservative and robust than LLL, which may exaggerate clinical benefits. Late lumen loss should be used discreetly depending on different situations and clinical benefits for patients.
Clinical Impact
This study addresses the critical issue of primary endpoint selection in clinical trials of drug-coated balloon for femoropopliteal artery stenosis. By elucidating the moderate correlation between 6-month late lumen loss (LLL) and 12-month primary patency rate (PPR), the findings underscore the limitations of LLL as a surrogate endpoint due to its variability and potential to overstate clinical benefits. The study advocates for the use of 12-month PPR as a more robust and conservative endpoint in pivotal trials, particularly for novel devices. These findings provide clinicians with a nuanced understanding of outcome measures, promoting evidence-based decision-making and regulatory alignment to ensure patient benefits in vascular interventions.
CriquiMHMatsushitaKAboyansV, et al. Lower extremity peripheral artery disease: contemporary epidemiology, management gaps, and future directions: a scientific statement from the American heart association. Circulation. 2021;144(9):e171–e191. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001005.
2.
RothGAMensahGAJohnsonCO, et al. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, 1990-2019: update from the GBD 2019 study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(25):2982–3021. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.010.
3.
AboyansVRiccoJBBartelinkMLEL, et al. 2017 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral arterial diseases, in collaboration with the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS): document covering atherosclerotic disease of extracranial carotid and vertebral, mesenteric, renal, upper and lower extremity arteries endorsed by: the European Stroke Organization (ESO) the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral arterial diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur Heart J. 2018;39(9):763–816. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx095.
4.
Gerhard-HermanMDGornikHLBarrettC, et al. 2016 AHA/ACC guideline on the management of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation. 2017;135(12):e726–e779. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000471.
5.
ShishehborMHJaffMRBeckmanJA, et al. Public health impact of the centers for Medicare and Medicaid services decision on pass-through add-on payments for drug-coated balloons: a call to action. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11(5):496–499. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2018.01.233.
6.
ShishehborMHWhiteCJBeckmanJA, et al. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid services’ decision on drug-coated balloons: no additional reimbursement despite higher cost and highest levels of scientific evidence. Vasc Med. 2018;23(6):558–559. doi:10.1177/1358863X18802969.
7.
ShishehborMH.Endovascular treatment of femoropopliteal lesions: so many options, little consensus. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66(21):2339–2342. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.09.062.
8.
TepeGLairdJSchneiderP, et al. Drug-coated balloon versus standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for the treatment of superficial femoral and popliteal peripheral artery disease: 12-month results from the IN. PACT SFA randomized trial. Circulation. 2015;131(5):495–502. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.011004.
9.
BausbackYWillfort-EhringerASievertH, et al. Six-month results from the initial randomized study of the ranger paclitaxel-coated balloon in the femoropopliteal segment. J Endovasc Ther. 2017;24(4):459–467. doi:10.1177/1526602817710770.
10.
ZellerTBrechtelKMeyerDR, et al. Six-month outcomes from the first-in-human, single-arm SELUTION sustained-limus-release drug-eluting balloon trial in femoropopliteal lesions. J Endovasc Ther. 2020;27(5):683–690. doi:10.1177/1526602820941811.
11.
ChokeETangTYPehE, et al. MagicTouch PTA sirolimus coated balloon for femoropopliteal and below the knee disease: results from XTOSI pilot study up to 12 months. J Endovasc Ther. 2022;29(5):780–789. doi:10.1177/15266028211064816.
12.
BlumenthalGMKluetzPGSchneiderJ, et al. Oncology drug approvals: evaluating endpoints and evidence in an era of breakthrough therapies. Oncologist. 2017;22(7):762–767. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0152.
13.
ConfortiFPalaLSalaI, et al. Evaluation of pathological complete response as surrogate endpoint in neoadjuvant randomised clinical trials of early stage breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2021;375:e066381. doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-066381.
14.
PrasadVKimCBurottoM, et al. The strength of association between surrogate end points and survival in oncology: a systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(8):1389–1398. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2829.
15.
MauriLOravEJO’MalleyAJ, et al. Relationship of late loss in lumen diameter to coronary restenosis in sirolimus-eluting stents. Circulation. 2005;111(3):321–327. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000153356.72810.97.
16.
MauriLOravEJCandiaSC, et al. Robustness of late lumen loss in discriminating drug-eluting stents across variable observational and randomized trials. Circulation. 2005;112(18):2833–2839. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA105.570093.
17.
MauriLOravEJKuntzRE.Late loss in lumen diameter and binary restenosis for drug-eluting stent comparison. Circulation. 2005;111(25):3435–3442. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.513952.
18.
AsanoTSerruysPWColletC, et al. Angiographic late lumen loss revisited: impact on long-term target lesion revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(36):3381–3389. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy436.
19.
XieWHalabiSTierneyJF, et al. A systematic review and recommendation for reporting of surrogate endpoint evaluation using meta-analyses. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2019;3(1):pkz002. doi:10.1093/jncics/pkz002.
DerSimonianRLairdN.Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177–188. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.
22.
NormandSL.Meta-analysis: formulating, evaluating, combining, and reporting. Stat Med. 1999;18(3):321–359. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19990215)18:3<321::aid-sim28>3.0.co;2-p.
23.
TepeGZellerTAlbrechtT, et al. Local delivery of paclitaxel to inhibit restenosis during angioplasty of the leg. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(7):689–699. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0706356.
24.
RosenfieldKJaffMRWhiteCJ, et al. Trial of a paclitaxel-coated balloon for femoropopliteal artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(2):145–153. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1406235.
25.
ScheinertDSchulteKLZellerT, et al. Paclitaxel-releasing balloon in femoropopliteal lesions using a BTHC excipient: twelve-month results from the BIOLUX P-I randomized trial. J Endovasc Ther. 2015;22(1):14–21. doi:10.1177/1526602814564383.
26.
ScheinertDSchmidtAZellerT, et al. German center subanalysis of the LEVANT 2 global randomized study of the Lutonix drug-coated balloon in the treatment of femoropopliteal occlusive disease. J Endovasc Ther. 2016;23(3):409–416. doi:10.1177/1526602816644592.
27.
KrishnanPFariesPNiaziK, et al. Stellarex drug-coated balloon for treatment of femoropopliteal disease: twelve-month outcomes from the randomized ILLUMENATE pivotal and pharmacokinetic studies. Circulation. 2017;136(12):1102–1113. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.028893.
28.
SchroederHWernerMMeyerDR, et al. Low-dose paclitaxel-coated versus uncoated percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty for femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease: one-year results of the ILLUMENATE European randomized clinical trial (randomized trial of a novel paclitaxel-coated percutaneous angioplasty balloon). Circulation. 2017;135(23):2227–2236. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.116.026493.
29.
ZellerTLanghoffRRocha-SinghKJ, et al. Directional atherectomy followed by a paclitaxel-coated balloon to inhibit restenosis and maintain vessel patency: twelve-month results of the DEFINITIVE AR study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(9):e004848. doi:10.1161/circinterventions.116.004848.
30.
AlbrechtTWaliszewskiMRocaC, et al. Two-year clinical outcomes of the CONSEQUENT trial: can femoropopliteal lesions be treated with sustainable clinical results that are economically sound?Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018;41(7):1008–1014. doi:10.1007/s00270-018-1940-1.
31.
BuszmanPPNowakowskiPMilewskiK, et al. Clinical randomized trial evaluating novel, microcrystalline, and biocompatible polymer paclitaxel-coated balloon for the treatment of femoropopliteal occlusive disease: the BIOPAC trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11(23):2436–2438. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2018.07.029.
32.
IidaOSogaYUrasawaK, et al. Drug-coated balloon vs standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for the treatment of atherosclerotic lesions in the superficial femoral and proximal popliteal arteries: one-year results of the MDT-2113 SFA Japan randomized trial. J Endovasc Ther. 2018;25(1):109–117. doi:10.1177/1526602817745565.
33.
SteinerSWillfort-EhringerASievertH, et al. 12-month results from the first-in-human randomized study of the ranger paclitaxel-coated balloon for femoropopliteal treatment. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11(10):934–941. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2018.01.276.
34.
BausbackYWittigTSchmidtA, et al. Drug-eluting stent versus drug-coated balloon revascularization in patients with femoropopliteal arterial disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(6):667–679. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.039.
35.
DuXWangFWuDM, et al. Comparison between paclitaxel-coated balloon and standard uncoated balloon in the treatment of femoropopliteal long lesions in diabetics. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(13):e14840. doi:10.1097/md.0000000000014840.
36.
CaiZGuoLQiL, et al. Midterm outcome of directional atherectomy combined with drug-coated balloon angioplasty versus drug-coated balloon angioplasty alone for femoropopliteal arteriosclerosis obliterans. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;64:181–187. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2019.06.014.
37.
SteinerSSchmidtAZellerT, et al. COMPARE: prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial of high- vs. Low-dose paclitaxel drug-coated balloons for femoropopliteal interventions. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(27):2541–2552. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa049.
38.
TeichgräberULehmannTAschenbachR, et al. Efficacy and safety of a novel paclitaxel-nano-coated balloon for femoropopliteal angioplasty: one-year results of the EffPac trial. Eurointervention. 2020;15(18):e1633–e1640. doi:10.4244/eij-d-19-00292.
39.
YeWZhangXDaiX, et al. ReewarmTM PTX drug-coated balloon in the treatment of femoropopliteal artery disease: a multi-center, randomized controlled trial in China. Int J Cardiol. 2021;326:164–169. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.10.060.
40.
LiaoCJSongSHLiT, et al. Orchid drug-coated balloon versus standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for the treatment of femoropopliteal artery disease: 12-month result of the randomized controlled trial. Vascular. 2022;30(3):448–454. doi:10.1177/17085381211013968.
41.
ShishehborMHZellerTWernerM, et al. A randomized trial of chocolate touch compared with Lutonix drug-coated balloon in femoropopliteal lesions (the CHOCOLATE TOUCH study). Circulation. 2022;145(22):1645–1654. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.122.059646.
42.
MicariACioppaAVadalàG, et al. Clinical evaluation of a paclitaxel-eluting balloon for treatment of femoropopliteal arterial disease: 12-month results from a multicenter Italian registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5(3):331–338. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2011.11.010.
43.
SchroederHMeyerDRLuxB, et al. Two-year results of a low-dose drug-coated balloon for revascularization of the femoropopliteal artery: outcomes from the ILLUMENATE first-in-human study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86(2):278–286. doi:10.1002/ccd.25900.
44.
MicariAVadalàGCastriotaF, et al. 1-year results of paclitaxel-coated balloons for long femoropopliteal artery disease: evidence from the SFA-long study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(9):950–956. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2016.02.014.
45.
LichtenbergMvon BilderlingPRanftJ, et al. Treatment of femoropopliteal atherosclerotic lesions using the ranger paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter: 12-month results from an all-comers registry. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2018;59(1):45–50. doi:10.23736/s0021-9509.17.10261-2.
46.
ScheinertDMicariABrodmannM, et al. Drug-coated balloon treatment for femoropopliteal artery disease. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11(10):e005654. doi:10.1161/circinterventions.117.005654.
47.
SchroëHHoldenAHGouefficY, et al. Stellarex drug-coated balloon for treatment of femoropopliteal arterial disease-The ILLUMENATE global study: 12-month results from a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;91(3):497–504. doi:10.1002/ccd.27348.
48.
ChenZGuoWJiangW, et al. IN.PACT SFA clinical study using the IN.PACT admiral drug-coated balloon in a Chinese patient population. J Endovasc Ther. 2019;26(4):471–478. doi:10.1177/1526602819852084.
49.
TepeGMicariAKeirseK, et al. Drug-coated balloon treatment for femoropopliteal artery disease: the chronic total occlusion cohort in the IN.PACT global study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(5):484–493. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2018.12.004.
50.
BosiersMDelooseKTorselloG, et al. One-year outcome of the paclitaxel-eluting Legflow balloon catheter in the treatment of long and complex femoropopliteal lesions. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2020;61(4):471–477. doi:10.23736/s0021-9509.20.11236-9.
51.
LanghoffRArjumandJWaliszewskiM, et al. The real-world CONSEQUENT ALL COMERS study: predictors for target lesion revascularization and mortality in an unselected patient population. Angiology. 2021;72(8):724–732. doi:10.1177/0003319721997314.
52.
SogaYIidaOFujiharaM, et al. Real-world clinical outcomes of IN.PACT admiral drug-coated balloon for femoropopliteal artery disease - 12-month results from Japan post-market surveillance study. Circ J. 2021;85(12):2149–2156. doi:10.1253/circj.CJ-21-0491.
53.
SchroëHSacharRKeirseK, et al. The RANGER II superficial femoral artery trial: 1-year results of the long lesion cohort. Vasc Med. 2022;27(5):457–465. doi:10.1177/1358863x221097164.
54.
BarcoSSebastianTVociD, et al. Major adverse limb events in patients with femoro-popliteal and below-the-knee peripheral arterial disease treated with either sirolimus-coated balloon or standard uncoated balloon angioplasty: a structured protocol summary of the “SirPAD” randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2022;23(1):334. doi:10.1186/s13063-022-06242-8.
55.
XuLTangZZouH, et al. Angiography-based computational modeling for in vivo assessment of endothelial dynamic strain in coronary arteries with de novo lesions: comparison of treatment effects of drug-coated balloons between small and large arteries. Cardiovasc Innov App. 2024;9:945. doi:10.15212/ CVIA.2024.0036.
56.
LangXWangYLiW, et al. Appropriate surrogate endpoint in drug-coated balloon trials for coronary artery diseases. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:897365. doi:10.3389/fcvm.2022.897365.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
