BACKGROUND:Myocardial (re)infarction (MI), a common trial end point, can be difficult to identify because of inconclusive signs and symptoms. We examined disagreement between investigator and clinical events committee (CEC) reporting of MIs in an international, randomized trial. METHODS: The primary end point of the PARAGON-B trial was a 30-day composite of death, MI (CEC adjudicated), or ischemia-driven intervention. If CEC and investigator determinations of MI differed, we sent investigators event summaries and rationales for CEC decisions and asked whether they now agreed with the CEC assessment. If they still disagreed, they were to provide a rationale and supporting data. Such cases were reviewed, and a final decision was made. RESULTS: Overall, 1736 of 5225 (33%) patients had suspected MIs; the CEC adjudicated 483 of 1736 (28%) as MIs. In 404 patients (23%), investigator and CEC assessments of MI differed; 270 MIs were identified by the CEC but not investigators, and 134 were identified by investigators but not the CEC. Most disagreements concerned periprocedural MIs, but some reflected clinical ischemia and enzyme elevations. Letters for 382 disagreements were sent and returned by investigators, and investigators came to agree with CEC assessments in 307 cases (80%). For the other 75 cases (20%), after review the investigators' assessments were confirmed in 10 cases, and the original CEC decisions were supported in the other 65 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Investigators misreport MI end points, but most later agree with CEC assessments. These data support standard, independent adjudication of suspected MIs for accurate reporting, which may affect evaluations of therapies, sample-size calculations, and event-rate comparisons across trials.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Myocardial (re)infarction (MI), a common trial end point, can be difficult to identify because of inconclusive signs and symptoms. We examined disagreement between investigator and clinical events committee (CEC) reporting of MIs in an international, randomized trial. METHODS: The primary end point of the PARAGON-B trial was a 30-day composite of death, MI (CEC adjudicated), or ischemia-driven intervention. If CEC and investigator determinations of MI differed, we sent investigators event summaries and rationales for CEC decisions and asked whether they now agreed with the CEC assessment. If they still disagreed, they were to provide a rationale and supporting data. Such cases were reviewed, and a final decision was made. RESULTS: Overall, 1736 of 5225 (33%) patients had suspected MIs; the CEC adjudicated 483 of 1736 (28%) as MIs. In 404 patients (23%), investigator and CEC assessments of MI differed; 270 MIs were identified by the CEC but not investigators, and 134 were identified by investigators but not the CEC. Most disagreements concerned periprocedural MIs, but some reflected clinical ischemia and enzyme elevations. Letters for 382 disagreements were sent and returned by investigators, and investigators came to agree with CEC assessments in 307 cases (80%). For the other 75 cases (20%), after review the investigators' assessments were confirmed in 10 cases, and the original CEC decisions were supported in the other 65 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Investigators misreport MI end points, but most later agree with CEC assessments. These data support standard, independent adjudication of suspected MIs for accurate reporting, which may affect evaluations of therapies, sample-size calculations, and event-rate comparisons across trials.
Authors: H M Crane; S R Heckbert; D R Drozd; M J Budoff; J A C Delaney; C Rodriguez; P Paramsothy; W B Lober; G Burkholder; J H Willig; M J Mugavero; W C Mathews; P K Crane; R D Moore; S Napravnik; J J Eron; P Hunt; E Geng; P Hsue; G S Barnes; J McReynolds; I Peter; C Grunfeld; M S Saag; M M Kitahata Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Ali Guermazi; David J Hunter; Ling Li; Olivier Benichou; Felix Eckstein; C Kent Kwoh; Michael Nevitt; Daichi Hayashi Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2011-04-09 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Patrick S Parfrey; Geoffrey A Block; Ricardo Correa-Rotter; Tilman B Drüeke; Jürgen Floege; Charles A Herzog; Gerard M London; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Sharon M Moe; David C Wheeler; Glenn M Chertow Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Alan R Lifson; Waldo H Belloso; Cate Carey; Richard T Davey; Daniel Duprez; Wafaa M El-Sadr; Jose M Gatell; Daniela C Gey; Jennifer F Hoy; Eric A Krum; Ray Nelson; Daniel E Nixon; Nick Paton; Court Pedersen; George Perez; Richard W Price; Ronald J Prineas; Frank S Rhame; James Sampson; John Worley Journal: HIV Clin Trials Date: 2008 May-Jun
Authors: Mark A Hlatky; Roberta M Ray; Dale R Burwen; Karen L Margolis; Karen C Johnson; Anna Kucharska-Newton; JoAnn E Manson; Jennifer G Robinson; Monika M Safford; Matthew Allison; Themistocles L Assimes; Anthony A Bavry; Jeffrey Berger; Rhonda M Cooper-DeHoff; Susan R Heckbert; Wenjun Li; Simin Liu; Lisa W Martin; Marco V Perez; Hilary A Tindle; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Marcia L Stefanick Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2014-01-07
Authors: Jun Hata; Hisatomi Arima; Sophia Zoungas; Greg Fulcher; Carol Pollock; Mark Adams; John Watson; Rohina Joshi; Andre Pascal Kengne; Toshiharu Ninomiya; Craig Anderson; Mark Woodward; Anushka Patel; Giuseppe Mancia; Neil Poulter; Stephen MacMahon; John Chalmers; Bruce Neal Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240