A survey of endpoint characteristics in periodontal clinical trials published 1988–1992, and implications for future studies

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Endpoints are conditions or events that are associated with individual study subjects and that are used to assess treatment efficacy. 2 types of endpoints can be distinguished: “true” endpoints (reflect unequivocal evidence of tangible benefit to the patient) and “surrogate” endpoints (usually a measure of disease process). The purpose of this study was to survey four aspects of endpoint usage in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of periodontitis: (1) the typical number of endpoints per RCT. (2) the proportion of RCTs using the same endpoint, (3) the proportion of RCTs using true endpoints, and (4) whether treatment choice influenced endpoint choice. 92 publications (1988–1992) reporting on 82 RCT's were identified. The typical number of endpoints per RCT was 6 (range: 1–28). The 3 most frequently used endpoints were mean probing depth (78% of the trials), mean probing attachment level (66%), and the plaque index (37%). In total, 153 distinct surrogate endpoints were defined. Most of these were used infrequently; over 80% of the 153 endpoints were used in fewer than 5 of the 82 trials. No trials used tooth loss as a true endpoint. In the design of an RCT, treatment choice influenced surrogate endpoint choice. Surrogate endpoints based on re‐entry surgery were exclusively used for regenerative procedures and microbiological surrogate endpoints were mostly used for RCT's on antimicrobials. The conclusion is that the typical RCT used multiple surrogate endpoints. some of which were used infrequently by other trials. Such endpoint usage characteristics are suitable for exploratory RCTs (designed to identify active treatments or to elucidate treatment mechanisms). The question is raised as to whether periodontal research has reached the point of needing properly designed definitive studies, whose purpose it would be to provide unequivocal evidence of tangible benefits to the patient by the various treatments. If a need for definitive randomized controlled trials is perceived, then the use of (multiple) surrogate endpoints as primary outcomes should be questioned. Surrogate endpoint usage has led to both false positive and false negative conclusions in other chronic disease studies. Endpoint selection and validation in RCTs may be an important element in resolving controversies about periodontal treatments.