Design of the Value of Imaging in Enhancing the Wellness of Your Heart (VIEW) trial and the impact of uncertainty on power

Abstract

Background Although observational evidence has suggested that the measurement of CAC may improve risk stratification for cardiovascular events and thus help guide the use of lipid-lowering therapy, this contention has not been evaluated within the context of a randomized trial. The Value of Imaging in Enhancing the Wellness of Your Heart (VIEW) trial is proposed as a randomized study in participants at low intermediate risk of future coronary heart disease (CHD) events to evaluate whether coronary artery calcium (CAC) testing leads to improved patient outcomes. Purpose To describe the challenges encountered in designing a prototypical screening trial and to examine the impact of uncertainty on power. Methods The VIEW trial was designed as an effectiveness clinical trial to examine the benefit of CAC testing to guide therapy on a primary outcome consisting of a composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, probable or definite angina with revascularization, resuscitated cardiac arrest, non-fatal stroke (not transient ischemic attack (TIA)), CHD death, stroke death, other atherosclerotic death, or other cardiovascular disease (CVD) death. Many critical choices were faced in designing the trial, including: (1) the choice of primary outcome, (2) the choice of therapy, (3) the target population with corresponding ethical issues, (4) specifications of assumptions for sample size calculations, and (5) impact of uncertainty in these assumptions on power/sample size determination. Results We have proposed a sample size of 30,000 (800 events) which provides 92.7% power. Alternatively, sample sizes of 20,228 (539 events), 23,138 (617 events) and 27,078 (722 events) provide 80, 85, and 90% power. We have also allowed for uncertainty in our assumptions by computing average power integrated over specified prior distributions. This relaxation of specificity indicates a reduction in power, dropping to 89.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 89.8 to 89.9) for a sample size of 30,000. Samples sizes of 20,228, 23,138, and 27,078 provide power of 78.0% (77.9 to 78.0), 82.5% (82.5 to 82.6), and 87.2% (87.2 to 87.3), respectively. Limitations These power estimates are dependent on form and parameters of the prior distributions. Conclusions Despite the pressing need for a randomized trial to evaluate the utility of CAC testing, conduct of such a trial requires recruiting a large patient population, making efficiency of critical importance. The large sample size is primarily due to targeting a study population at relatively low risk of a CVD event. Our calculations also illustrate the importance of formally considering uncertainty in power calculations of large trials as standard power calculations may tend to overestimate power.

Use of Coronary Artery Calcium Testing to Guide Aspirin Utilization for Primary Prevention: Estimates From the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

“…The ideal approach to address this study’s hypothesis would be a randomized controlled trial. However, conducting such a trial for a diagnostic screening test in the setting of primary prevention requires a large sample size, long duration, and high cost (39). The 18% CHD reduction for the total sample, the 32% reduction in CHD for men, and 17% reduction in CVD for women are larger benefits than what the recent meta-analyses of aspirin in primary prevention have shown (4,5).…”

Using the Coronary Artery Calcium Score to Guide Statin Therapy

“…This degradation might occur if scanning technique and interpretation are lower quality in practice than they have been in research studies, or if research estimates of CAC prediction were otherwise over-optimistic, such as might occur from the lack of blinding to CAC scores that has been common in cohort studies. This sensitivity to assumptions creates a powerful rationale for real-world effectiveness testing with a clinical trial, as has been proposed 43 ; such a trial, however, would be very expensive and would take many years to complete.…”

Interpretation of the Coronary Artery Calcium Score in Combination With Conventional Cardiovascular Risk Factors

“…The net comparative effectiveness and efficiency (cost-effectiveness) of this approach, however, have not been proven. To do so would require randomized controlled trials of an integrated screening and targeted prevention strategy 31 or careful modeling of expected benefits, harms and costs 32 .…”