Jordan B Strom1,2,3, Kamil F Faridi2,4, Neel M Butala3,5, Yuansong Zhao1,2,3, Hector Tamez1,2,3, Linda R Valsdottir1,2,3, J Matthew Brennan6, Changyu Shen1,2,3, Jeffrey J Popma2,3,7, Dhruv S Kazi1,2,3, Robert W Yeh1,2,3,7. 1. Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Boston, MA (J.B.S., Y.Z., H.T., L.R.V., C.S., D.S.K., R.W.Y.). 2. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA (J.B.S., K.F.F., Y.Z., H.T., L.R.V., C.S., J.J.P., D.S.K., R.W.Y.). 3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (J.B.S., N.M.B., Y.Z., H.T., L.R.V., C.S., J.J.P., D.S.K., R.W.Y.). 4. Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale School of Medicine (K.F.F.). 5. Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston (N.M.B.). 6. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC (J.M.B.). 7. Baim Institute for Clinical Research, Boston, MA (J.J.P., R.W.Y.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether passively collected data can substitute for adjudicated outcomes to reproduce the magnitude and direction of treatment effect observed in cardiovascular clinical trials is not well known. METHODS: We linked adults ≥65 years of age in the HiR (US CoreValve Pivotal High Risk) and SURTAVI trials (Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients) to 100% Medicare inpatient claims, January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2016. Primary (eg, death and stroke) and secondary trial end points were compared across treatment arms (eg, transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR] versus surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR]) using trial-adjudicated outcomes versus outcomes derived from claims at 1 year (HiR) or 2 years (SURTAVI). RESULTS: Among 600 linked HiR participants (linkage rate, 80.0%), the rate of the trial's primary end point of all-cause mortality occurred in 13.7% of patients receiving TAVR and 16.4% of patients receiving SAVR at 1 year by using both trial data (hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.65-1.09]; P=0.33) and claims data (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.66-1.11]; P=0.34; interaction P value=0.80). Noninferiority of TAVR relative to SAVR was seen by using both trial- and claims-based outcomes (Pnoninferiority<0.001 for both). Among 1005 linked SURTAVI trial participants (linkage rate, 60.5%), the trial's primary end point was 12.9% for TAVR and 13.1% for SAVR using trial data (hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.79-1.48]; P=0.90), and 11.3% for TAVR and 12.5% for SAVR patients using claims data (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73-1.41]; P=0.58; interaction P value=0.89). TAVR was noninferior to SAVR when compared using both trial and claims (Pnoninferiority<0.001 for both). Rates of procedural secondary outcomes (eg, aortic valve reintervention, pacemaker rates) were more closely concordant between trial and claims data than nonprocedural outcomes (eg, stroke, bleeding, cardiogenic shock). CONCLUSIONS: In the HiR and SURTAVI trials, ascertainment of trial primary end points using claims reproduced both the magnitude and direction of treatment effect in comparison with adjudicated event data, but nonfatal and nonprocedural secondary outcomes were not as well reproduced. Use of claims to substitute for adjudicated outcomes in traditional trial treatment comparisons may be valid and feasible for all-cause mortality and certain procedural outcomes but may be less suitable for other end points.
BACKGROUND: Whether passively collected data can substitute for adjudicated outcomes to reproduce the magnitude and direction of treatment effect observed in cardiovascular clinical trials is not well known. METHODS: We linked adults ≥65 years of age in the HiR (US CoreValve Pivotal High Risk) and SURTAVI trials (Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients) to 100% Medicare inpatient claims, January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2016. Primary (eg, death and stroke) and secondary trial end points were compared across treatment arms (eg, transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR] versus surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR]) using trial-adjudicated outcomes versus outcomes derived from claims at 1 year (HiR) or 2 years (SURTAVI). RESULTS: Among 600 linked HiRparticipants (linkage rate, 80.0%), the rate of the trial's primary end point of all-cause mortality occurred in 13.7% of patients receiving TAVR and 16.4% of patients receiving SAVR at 1 year by using both trial data (hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.65-1.09]; P=0.33) and claims data (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.66-1.11]; P=0.34; interaction P value=0.80). Noninferiority of TAVR relative to SAVR was seen by using both trial- and claims-based outcomes (Pnoninferiority<0.001 for both). Among 1005 linked SURTAVI trial participants (linkage rate, 60.5%), the trial's primary end point was 12.9% for TAVR and 13.1% for SAVR using trial data (hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.79-1.48]; P=0.90), and 11.3% for TAVR and 12.5% for SAVR patients using claims data (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73-1.41]; P=0.58; interaction P value=0.89). TAVR was noninferior to SAVR when compared using both trial and claims (Pnoninferiority<0.001 for both). Rates of procedural secondary outcomes (eg, aortic valve reintervention, pacemaker rates) were more closely concordant between trial and claims data than nonprocedural outcomes (eg, stroke, bleeding, cardiogenic shock). CONCLUSIONS: In the HiR and SURTAVI trials, ascertainment of trial primary end points using claims reproduced both the magnitude and direction of treatment effect in comparison with adjudicated event data, but nonfatal and nonprocedural secondary outcomes were not as well reproduced. Use of claims to substitute for adjudicated outcomes in traditional trial treatment comparisons may be valid and feasible for all-cause mortality and certain procedural outcomes but may be less suitable for other end points.
Entities:
Keywords:
administrative claims, healthcare; aortic valve; clinical trial; outcomes assessment, health care
Authors: Ole Fröbert; Bo Lagerqvist; Göran K Olivecrona; Elmir Omerovic; Thorarinn Gudnason; Michael Maeng; Mikael Aasa; Oskar Angerås; Fredrik Calais; Mikael Danielewicz; David Erlinge; Lars Hellsten; Ulf Jensen; Agneta C Johansson; Amra Kåregren; Johan Nilsson; Lotta Robertson; Lennart Sandhall; Iwar Sjögren; Ollie Ostlund; Jan Harnek; Stefan K James Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-08-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eric L Eisenstein; Philip W Lemons; Barbara E Tardiff; Kevin A Schulman; M King Jolly; Robert M Califf Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Michael J Reardon; Nicolas M Van Mieghem; Jeffrey J Popma; Neal S Kleiman; Lars Søndergaard; Mubashir Mumtaz; David H Adams; G Michael Deeb; Brijeshwar Maini; Hemal Gada; Stanley Chetcuti; Thomas Gleason; John Heiser; Rüdiger Lange; William Merhi; Jae K Oh; Peter S Olsen; Nicolo Piazza; Mathew Williams; Stephan Windecker; Steven J Yakubov; Eberhard Grube; Raj Makkar; Joon S Lee; John Conte; Eric Vang; Hang Nguyen; Yanping Chang; Andrew S Mugglin; Patrick W J C Serruys; Arie P Kappetein Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gregg W Stone; A Pieter Kappetein; Joseph F Sabik; Stuart J Pocock; Marie-Claude Morice; John Puskas; David E Kandzari; Dimitri Karmpaliotis; W Morris Brown; Nicholas J Lembo; Adrian Banning; Béla Merkely; Ferenc Horkay; Piet W Boonstra; Ad J van Boven; Imre Ungi; Gabor Bogáts; Samer Mansour; Nicolas Noiseux; Manel Sabaté; Jose Pomar; Mark Hickey; Anthony Gershlick; Pawel E Buszman; Andrzej Bochenek; Erick Schampaert; Pierre Pagé; Rodrigo Modolo; John Gregson; Charles A Simonton; Roxana Mehran; Ioanna Kosmidou; Philippe Généreux; Aaron Crowley; Ovidiu Dressler; Patrick W Serruys Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-09-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bruce M Psaty; Joseph A Delaney; Alice M Arnold; Lesley H Curtis; Annette L Fitzpatrick; Susan R Heckbert; Barbara McKnight; Diane Ives; John S Gottdiener; Lewis H Kuller; W T Longstreth Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Yuka Kiyota; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Robert J Glynn; Carolyn C Cannuscio; Jerry Avorn; Daniel H Solomon Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Jordan B Strom; Hector Tamez; Yuansong Zhao; Linda R Valsdottir; Jeptha Curtis; J Matthew Brennan; Changyu Shen; Jeffrey J Popma; Laura Mauri; Robert W Yeh Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Harun Kundi; Jordan B Strom; Linda R Valsdottir; Sammy Elmariah; Jeffrey J Popma; Changyu Shen; Robert W Yeh Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 11.195