Composite endpoints combine multiple outcomes into one measure in clinical trials, offering advantages such as statistical efficiency and a broader evaluation of clinical benefits. However, they can be misleading if components have varying importance or if post hoc changes are made. Proper assessment of composite endpoints is critical to ensure components are of similar importance and frequency.

1. 
Composite End Points
Kyle Gennaro

2. Overview
 Composite end point consists of two or more
component outcomes
 Participants that experience any of the events are
considered to experience the composite outcome

3. Advantages
 Statistical efficiency
 Prevents arbitrary selection between different
outcomes from a single disease process
 Broader evaluation of clinical benefit from an
intervention

4. Disadvantages
 Misleading – assumes the effect on the composite
outcome is similar amongst components
 Components can be of dissimilar importance
 Post hoc changes to the composite

5. Disadvantages - Misleading

6. Disadvantages - Misleading

7. Disadvantages – Dissimilar Importance

8. Disadvantages – Dissimilar Importance

9. Disadvantages – Dissimilar Importance

10. Disadvantages – Post hoc changes

11. Critically assessing composite endpoints
 Components are of similar importance to the
patient
 Components occur with similar frequency
 Components are affected to a similar degree

12. Sources
 Carson JL, Terrin ML, Noveck H, et al. Liberal or restrictive transfusion in high-risk patients after hip surgery. N Engl J
Med. 2011;365(26):2453-62.
 Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes
in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291(20):2457-65.
 Cordoba G, Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Bae H, Gøtzsche PC. Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite
outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;341:c3920.
 Gever J. Debate Surges on Composite Endpoints. MedPage Today. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?
q=cache:KtUYRHXvqQQJ:www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/clinicaltrials/18046
&cd=13&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us. Published January 19, 2010. Accessed February 12, 2017.
 Kleist P. Composite Endpoints: Proceed with Caution. Applied Clinical Trials. http://
www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/composite-endpoints-proceed-caution?id=&pageID=1&sk=&date=.
Published May 1, 2006. Accessed February 13, 2017.Montori VM, Jaeschke R, Schünemann HJ, et al. Users'
guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports. BMJ. 2004;329(7474):1093-6.
 Pearce W, Raman S, Turner A. Randomised trials in context: practical problems and social aspects of evidence-based
medicine and policy. Trials. 2015;16:394.
 Rind D. Composite Endpoints and the CREST Trial. Evidence in Medicine. http://www.evidenceinmedicine.org/
2010/05/composite-endpoints-and-the-crest-trial.html. Published May 30, 2010. Accessed February 12, 2017.
 Sankoh AJ, Li H, D'agostino RB. Use of composite endpoints in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2014;33(27):4709-14.
 Tomlinson G, Detsky AS. Composite end points in randomized trials: there is no free lunch. JAMA. 2010;303(3):267-8.
 Trial of invasive versus medical therapy in elderly patients with chronic symptomatic coronary-artery disease (TIME): a
randomised trial. Lancet. 2001;358(9286):951-7.