1 -cause mortality; P=0.001 for cardiovascular
end point).
2 l phase (-126.3 minutes at 1-year open-label
end point).
3 sociated acute kidney injury was a secondary
end point.
4 Safety was a secondary
end point.
5 t and overall survival (OS) as the secondary
end point.
6 t, compared with 51% with the CTC conversion
end point.
7 , and 30 min postadministration was the main
end point.
8 pT0/is ypN0 definition was used as a primary
end point.
9 ty score-matched populations was the primary
end point.
10 ereas AAA diameters were quantified at study
end point.
11 survival and overall survival were secondary
end points.
12 -one primary end points (81%) were surrogate
end points.
13 ack hub registry and a selection of new REST
end points.
14 lished data and across primary and secondary
end points.
15 ial-level milestone ratios with conventional
end points.
16 er PTA for both the safety and effectiveness
end points.
17 ost primary outcomes were based on surrogate
end points.
18 to decline compared with control eyes at all
end points.
19 idered as alternatives to specific assays or
end points.
20 uire confirmation using traditional efficacy
end points.
21 or physiological magnetic resonance imaging
end points.
22 d progression-free survival were the primary
end points.
23 a that capture financial and quality-of-life
end points.
24 t significantly improve any of the secondary
end points.
25 evident across multiple clinically relevant
end points.
26 Efficacy and pharmacodynamics were secondary
end points.
27 of individual components of these composite
end points.
28 er in vessels with vessel-oriented composite
end point (
0.88+/-0.06 versus 0.90+/-0.06, respectively;
29 Of patients meeting the primary
end point,
13 (10.2%) had 1 or more episodes lasting 24
30 ignificantly reduced the risk of the primary
end point (
1344 patients [9.8%] vs. 1563 patients [11.3%
31 ting data across human health and ecological
end points, (
3) facilitating cross-species dose-response
32 mized to ferric citrate achieved the primary
end point (
61 [52.1%] versus 22 [19.1%] with placebo; P<
33 One hundred twenty-one primary
end points (
81%) were surrogate end points.
34 0.79 to 0.92; P<0.001) and the key secondary
end point (
816 [5.9%] vs. 1013 [7.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.8
35 gest a clinically relevant effect on cardiac
end points after early conversion from CNI to a CNI-free
36 Falsification
end point analyses of vascular complications, bleeding,
37 s compared between the 2 arms as the primary
end point and overall survival (OS) as the secondary end
38 ing strategy was used for the second primary
end point and the secondary end points in the final anal
39 s uncoupled as nucleosome sliding reaches an
end point and this is controlled by the Ino80CTD.
40 nic populations and for quantifying anatomic
end points and response to therapy in AMD clinical trial
41 vascular coupling responses were measured at
end point (
approximately 7 months of age), together wit
42 The primary
end point at 12 months was similar between groups.
43 Academic Research Consortium-2 early safety
end point at 30 days was 7.4% with both devices with no
44 of 661 with motor diagnosis as the survival
end point but only 177 with a total motor score PFS.
45 eability using integrated electrodes and the
end-point characterization of the endothelium through im
46 study was a randomized, open-label, blinded
end-point clinical trial conducted in 8 comprehensive st
47 le patients could be evaluated with the CTC0
end point,
compared with 51% with the CTC conversion end
48 Composite
end point components were ranked according to importance
49 Evolocumab significantly reduced the primary
end point consistently in patients with PAD (hazard rati
50 ectionally consistent effects on the primary
end point (
death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven
51 tors, there was no difference in the primary
end point,
death or unplanned reintervention to treat cy
52 f complete remission and the composite renal
end point did not differ significantly between groups.
53 DCB to facilitate the development of future
end point-
driven randomized studies.
54 ological measures) with the probabilities of
end points (
e.g., death or system failure).
55 We conducted a secondary
end point evaluation of HRAE (survival free of any nonsu
56 p, open-label treatment trial with a blinded
end-point evaluation to compare GA with CS for treatment
57 months beyond catheter ablation by a blinded
end-point evaluation.
58 A primary
end-point event occurred in 68 of 1012 patients (6.7%) i
59 n of a target nucleic acid by digitizing the
end-point fluorescence of the parallel micro-PCR reactio
60 As a standard study
end point for first-line FL therapy, progression-free su
61 lore milestone rate, a proposed intermediate
end point for immunotherapy trials.
62 n of genetic susceptibility to NFT, a common
end point for multiple different pathologic processes.
63 tment with chemoimmunotherapy as a surrogate
end point for progression-free survival (PFS) in chronic
64 ld be considered as one of the most relevant
end points for transplant-eligible and elderly fit patie
65 The 5-year
end point-
free renal survival was 64.5% (95% CI, 57.4-71
66 Conclusion The CTC0 and CTC conversion
end points had the highest discriminatory power for over
67 Thus, the bound states-one
end point-
have been thoroughly characterized, but the un
68 and LAS independently indicated the combined
end point (
hazard ratio = 2.8 and 1.9, respectively; P <
69 dialysis independence at 3 months; secondary
end points:
hemodialysis independence rates at 6 and 12
70 port the integration of MRD assessment as an
end point in clinical trials of MM.
71 or interpret trial results or as a secondary
end point in exploratory studies.
72 he use of gamma-band ASSR as a translational
end point in pro-cognitive drug discovery and early-phas
73 cy model supports use of PB-MRD as a primary
end point in randomized clinical trials of chemoimmunoth
74 The hazard ratio for the primary
end point in the combined trials was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.76
75 , fewer toxic effects, and improved survival
end points in an animal tumor model, the authors conclud
76 , using a risk-based approach to ecotoxicity
end points in conjunction with mass removal.
77 and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response
end points in five prospective randomized phase III tria
78 ht to determine whether the use of composite
end points in major cardiovascular trials has changed ov
79 e second primary end point and the secondary
end points in the final analysis.
80 more likely to achieve the primary efficacy
end point:
in trial A, 188 of 254 (74.0%) vs 21 of 254 (
81 Secondary
end points included a composite of mortality, clinical i
82 Secondary
end points included anatomic patency, adverse event rate
83 Secondary
end points included cardiac magnetic resonance-determine
84 Secondary
end points included change in body weight and cardiometa
85 Coprimary
end points included change in brachial artery flow-media
86 Exploratory
end points included change in high-sensitivity C-reactiv
87 Secondary
end points included changes in LV volumes, infarct size,
88 Secondary
end points included clinical outcomes (major adverse car
89 Secondary
end points included disease-free survival and the cumula
90 Secondary
end points included intraoperative and postoperative com
91 d point was in-hospital mortality; secondary
end points included new-onset organ failure.
92 Secondary
end points included number of days of use of other illic
93 Secondary
end points included other visual analog scale (eg, high
94 The primary end point was PFS; secondary
end points included overall survival (OS), objective res
95 Secondary
end points included overall survival and subgroup analys
96 Secondary
end points included overall survival, distant metastasis
97 Secondary
end points included overall survival, local and regional
98 Secondary
end points included overall survival, objective response
99 Secondary
end points included overall survival, safety, and biomar
100 Secondary
end points included relapse-free survival (RFS) and TRM.
101 Secondary
end points included repeat revascularization and a compo
102 End points included safety (primary), objective response
103 Secondary
end points included safety, assessed as the rate and gra
104 The secondary
end points included short-term weight loss, serum obesit
105 Other
end points included target lesion revascularization, thr
106 Secondary
end points included the incidences of nonvertebral and h
107 Secondary
end points included the proportion of patients with at l
108 Secondary
end points included the rate of nocturnal symptomatic hy
109 The key secondary
end points included time to first SRE and skeletal morbi
110 Secondary
end points included time to second progression or death,
111 ectively defined to identify relevant safety
end points,
including arterial thromboembolic events, MI
112 examined the association of age with related
end points,
including overall biopsy-determined progress
113 Use of composite
end points increased significantly over time from 18.8%
114 Among examined
end points,
inverse associations were observed for death
115 C h(-1) and taken to the same physiological
end point (
just prior to heat coma).
116 antly better outcome regarding the composite
end point (
malignant ventricular arrhythmias, end-stage
117 Use of this
end point may expedite therapeutic development with the
118 Secondary
end points,
measured as continuous variables, included p
119 y based on chemical extraction, representing
end point measurements.
120 luated over macro-ecological time scales and
end-point measurements.
121 Among secondary
end points,
nasal symptoms were worse in the intradermal
122 Further, epigenetic
end points need to be correlated with observable detrime
123 utide resulted in lower risks of the primary
end point (
nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stro
124 The primary
end point occurred in 110 of 2511 patients (4.4%) in the
125 The primary
end point occurred in 87 patients (52%) in the levosimen
126 antly though modestly improved the composite
end point of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization w
127 ly lower occurrence of the primary composite
end point of all-cause mortality, restenosis, or definit
128 The primary
end point of arrhythmic events was defined as appropriat
129 docardial mitral isthmus line (MIL) with the
end point of bidirectional block may be challenging and
130 0 to 0.99) and a lower risk of the composite
end point of brain damage, nursing home admission, or de
131 e report the coprimary overall survival (OS)
end point of CheckMate 037, which has previously shown t
132 The primary
end point of CKD progression was a composite of 50% eGFR
133 sociated with increased risk of the combined
end point of death or transplantation.
134 an follow-up of 3.9+/-2.4 years, the primary
end point of death, transplant, or admission for heart f
135 ring surgery at Week 25 based on a composite
end point of endoscopic nasal polyp score and nasal poly
136 The rate of the composite
end point of extensive chronic GVHD and relapse-free sur
137 For the principal effectiveness
end point of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism, no signi
138 e classified as having had CED or a combined
end point of neurological-etiology death or survival.
139 al imprinting alterations, implying a common
end point of pathogenesis.
140 in a significant difference in the composite
end point of prolonged catecholamine infusion, use of le
141 area under the curve, 0.78) and the combined
end point of RVAD or death within 14 days (area under th
142 ctors for RVAD implantation and the combined
end point of RVAD or death within 14 days of LVAD were a
143 At 12 months, the primary
end point of target lesion failure (composite of cardiac
144 h zotarolimus-eluting stents for the primary
end point of target lesion failure at 12 months and had
145 The primary
end point of the study was percentage diameter stenosis
146 The primary
end point of the trial was cardiovascular death, myocard
147 The primary
end point of ventricular arrhythmias during exercise was
148 and obligate nonbiting populations represent
end points of divergence between fully interfertile sout
149 t between-group differences in the secondary
end points of scores for working memory (change in raw s
150 consensus exists on the critical targets and
end points of the procedure.
151 Structurally, this represents the current
end-point of an extensive medicinal chemistry endeavor t
152 None of the secondary
end point or day-30 all-cause mortality or heart failure
153 reatment did not affect a clinical composite
end point or reduce long-term cardiovascular mortality.
154 y have limited ability to address individual
end points or safety concerns.
155 d acetylcysteine with respect to the primary
end point (
P=0.33).
156 ation between stent fracture and the primary
end point (
P=0.86) or with restenosis (P=0.53).
157 2.5 mug, add-on therapy improved the primary
end point,
peak FEV1 within 3 hours after dosing (5 mug,
158 Digital polymerase chain reaction (dPCR)
end point platforms directly estimate the number of DNA
159 The primary
end point,
progression-free survival (PFS), was evaluate
160 owed a reduced branching rate (-14%), a high
end-point rate (+25%) and an increased lacunarity (+139%
161 All secondary
end points reached statistical significance in the ferri
162 ures remained collectively stable (composite
end point relative to baseline values) in >/=85% of pati
163 The analysis of the primary
end point showed noninferiority of the study device rela
164 Major
end points subsequent to first MI were assessed using la
165 ising proof-of-concept trials with surrogate
end points such as infarct size to larger clinical outco
166 a particular new drug using an intermediate
end point,
such as MRD, would require confirmation using
167 and lag between these changes and acceptable
end points,
such as ESRD, has limited its utility.
168 research that evaluates not only traditional
end points,
such as mortality and readmission, but also
169 edictive biomarkers and novel clinical trial
end points,
such as volumetric measurement, magnetic res
170 inical response criteria for the two primary
end points than did those who received placebo.
171 up of 15 months and a hierarchical composite
end point that evaluated the initial 48-hour clinical co
172 als are more likely to use primary composite
end points that contain a larger number of components.
173 For the key secondary
end point,
the HRs were 0.73 (0.59-0.91; P=0.0040) for t
174 Conclusion The study met its primary
end point;
the objective response rate was significantly
175 arlier access to newer therapies, an earlier
end point to expedite clinical trials is needed.
176 ons, such as duration of therapy and optimal
end points to evaluate efficacy of drugs in clinical pra
177 prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded
end point trial, consenting patients with type 2 diabete
178 -28 to 99; P = .27]), and the key secondary
end point,
trough FEV1 (5 mug, 87 mL [95% CI, 19-154; P
179 variety of biological systems affect apical
end points used in regulatory risk assessments, and with
180 timing of antifungal administration, and the
end points used to assess antifungal activity affect the
181 nths, the estimated incidence of the primary
end point was 12.6% in the TAVR group and 14.0% in the s
182 The primary
end point was 2-year progression-free survival.
183 The primary
end point was a change in peak oxygen uptake (Vo2) from
184 The primary
end point was a change in the villous height:crypt depth
185 The primary efficacy
end point was a composite of adjudicated cardiovascular
186 The primary
end point was a composite of death, the need for dialysi
187 The primary
end point was a glycated hemoglobin level lower than 7.0
188 The primary
end point was achieved in 164 patients in the study grou
189 The primary
end point was adjudicated AF lasting 6 or more minutes a
190 The primary efficacy
end point was airflow decline-free survival at 2 years a
191 Primary
end point was all-cause mortality or disabling stroke wi
192 The secondary
end point was association between discordant IOP measure
193 The primary
end point was centrally assessed PFS.
194 The primary efficacy
end point was cGVHD response based on 2005 National Inst
195 The primary efficacy
end point was change in serum phosphate concentration fr
196 The primary
end point was complete remission (CR) or CR with partial
197 The primary study
end point was coronary collateral flow index as obtained
198 The primary
end point was daily combined symptom-medication scores d
199 The primary
end point was death, myocardial infarction, or unstable
200 A primary cardiac
end point was defined as symptomatic congestive heart fa
201 The primary
end point was development of HGD or EAC.
202 The primary
end point was dual: a composite of all-cause mortality a
203 The primary
end point was dysplasia missed by the first colonoscopy
204 The primary
end point was endothelial integrity and muscular damage
205 The primary
end point was event-free survival (with an event defined
206 The primary
end point was first incident stroke.
207 The primary efficacy
end point was freedom from AF between 90 and 365 days af
208 The primary safety
end point was freedom from device- and procedure-related
209 The primary
end point was freedom from repeat coronary revasculariza
210 Primary
end point was hemodialysis independence at 3 months; sec
211 Primary
end point was in-hospital mortality; secondary end point
212 The primary
end point was incident diverticulitis.
213 The prognostic
end point was long-term mortality.
214 The primary
end point was major adverse cardiac events defined as al
215 The primary safety
end point was major adverse cardiac, cerebrovascular, an
216 The primary safety
end point was major bleeding.
217 The primary
end point was maximal decrease in FEV1 during 10 days af
218 The primary efficacy
end point was met by 71.2% versus 69.3%, in the LB and R
219 The primary effectiveness
end point was met, and superiority of DCB over PTA was a
220 The primary safety
end point was met, and superiority was demonstrated; fre
221 The primary
end point was new HF assessed over acute (0-6 months) an
222 The primary efficacy
end point was noninferiority of etelcalcetide at achievi
223 The 30-day composite
end point was not significantly different between suctio
224 The primary
end point was objective response rate evaluated by inves
225 The primary
end point was OS 18 months post-random assignment based
226 The primary
end point was OS.
227 The primary
end point was overall response rate (ORR).
228 The primary
end point was overall survival (OS) of patients who were
229 Primary
end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end p
230 Primary
end point was overall survival (OS).
231 The primary
end point was overall survival.
232 The primary
end point was patient participation in CRC screening 1 y
233 The primary
end point was PFS; secondary end points included overall
234 The primary effectiveness
end point was primary patency at 12 months.
235 The primary
end point was progression-free survival (PFS).
236 The primary
end point was progression-free survival by response asse
237 The primary
end point was reached by 25 ablation patients and 26 ICD
238 The primary
end point was relapse-free survival (RFS).
239 The primary
end point was remission at 8 weeks.
240 The primary
end point was RT-PCR-confirmed, protocol defined, influe
241 The secondary
end point was safety, assessed by the number and intensi
242 The primary
end point was seroconversion or a >/=4-fold rise in anti
243 Primary
end point was short-term (in-hospital or 30 days) mortal
244 The composite
end point was significantly lower in the RA group (8.8%;
245 The primary
end point was spontaneous preterm birth at less than 34
246 The primary
end point was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks a
247 The primary
end point was target-vessel failure (a composite of card
248 The primary
end point was the annualized rate of asthma exacerbation
249 The primary
end point was the change from baseline in LDL cholestero
250 The primary
end point was the change from baseline to months 4 throu
251 The primary
end point was the change in convulsive-seizure frequency
252 The primary
end point was the change in Hb at day 7.
253 The primary
end point was the change in NT-proBNP levels from baseli
254 The primary
end point was the change in peak VO2 from baseline to 24
255 The primary efficacy
end point was the composite of all-cause mortality, myoc
256 The primary
end point was the composite of aneurysm rupture or repai
257 The key secondary efficacy
end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myo
258 The primary
end point was the composite of incident heart failure, a
259 The primary
end point was the detection of bone lesions at diagnosis
260 The primary
end point was the development of asthma until age 12 yea
261 The primary efficacy
end point was the disappearance of the reticular veins w
262 The primary
end point was the efficacy of three doses of vaccine as
263 The primary
end point was the identification of the maximum tolerate
264 The primary
end point was the incidence of somatic mutations of the
265 The primary
end point was the number of patients no longer requiring
266 The primary
end point was the percentage of patients with disability
267 The primary
end point was the proportion of patients with 1 or more
268 The primary
end point was the rate of overall survival.
269 The
end point was the risk difference in the onset of new al
270 Primary study
end point was the time to first recurrence of ventricula
271 The primary
end point was treatment efficacy measured as the respons
272 dy fat redistribution, and the main specific
end point was visceral adipose tissue (VAT).
273 The primary
end-point was the 2007 international working group compl
274 trategy index of executive function (primary
end point)
was -0.21+/-2.62 in the evolocumab group and
275 hs of single implanted stents (n=71, primary
end point)
was 95.2+/-5.2% and of combined single and ov
276 Secondary
end points were a 50% or greater reduction in mean migra
277 The two primary
end points were a four-component composite of death thro
278 Clinical
end points were AD dementia and any type of dementia aft
279 Secondary ischemic
end points were also evaluated.
280 Key secondary efficacy
end points were change from baseline to days 42 and 14 i
281 Secondary
end points were change in 6-minute walk distance, plasma
282 Three time-to-event
end points were considered: disease-free-survival, breas
283 Primary
end points were feasibility and safety.
284 Secondary study
end points were fractional flow reserve during vessel pa
285 Secondary
end points were frequency of infections, treatment-relat
286 Main secondary
end points were overall survival and bronchiolitis oblit
287 Secondary
end points were patient-reported toxicity, overall survi
288 int was overall survival (OS), and secondary
end points were progression-free survival (PFS), respons
289 End points were safety, response, pharmacokinetics, and
290 The key secondary
end points were T-cell persistence and their antigliobla
291 The two primary
end points were the accrued weeks of remission over a 52
292 Secondary
end points were the change in the mean number of mucosal
293 The primary
end points were the cumulative incidence of new vertebra
294 The coprimary
end points were the mean score for disability on the uti
295 Secondary
end points were the number of telephone calls and emails
296 The primary
end points were the percentage of patients who had at le
297 Primary
end points were the proportion of patients who had an Am
298 The two primary efficacy
end points were the proportion of women who had a clinic
299 The primary
end points were treatment safety and tumor response.
300 time to treatment failure, the primary study
end point,
with R-CHOP and R-FM versus R-CVP and showed