Yiming Chen1,2, John Lawrence3, H M James Hung4, Norman Stockbridge5. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Maryland, College Park, USA. 2. ORISE, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, USA. 3. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA. john.lawrence@fda.hhs.gov. 4. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA. 5. Division of Cardiology and Nephrology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uncertain ascertainment of events in clinical trials has been noted for decades. To correct possible bias, Clinical Endpoint Committees (CECs) have been employed as a critical element of trials to ensure consistent and high-quality endpoint evaluation, especially for cardiovascular endpoints. However, the efficiency and usefulness of adjudication have been debated. METHODS: The multiple imputation (MI) method was proposed to incorporate endpoint event uncertainty. In a simulation conducted to explain this methodology, the dichotomous outcome was imputed each time with subject-specific event probabilities. As the final step, the desired analysis was conducted based on all imputed data. This proposed method was further applied to real trial data from PARADIGM-HF. RESULTS: Compared with the conventional Cox model with adjudicated events only, the Cox MI method had higher power, even with a small number of uncertain events. It yielded more robust inferences regarding treatment effects and required a smaller sample size to achieve the same power. CONCLUSIONS: Instead of using dichotomous endpoint data, the MI method enables incorporation of event uncertainty and eliminates the need for categorizing endpoint events. In future trials, assigning a probability of event occurrence for each event may be preferable to a CEC assigning a dichotomous outcome. Considerable resources could be saved if endpoint events can be identified more simply and in a manner that maintains study power.
BACKGROUND: Uncertain ascertainment of events in clinical trials has been noted for decades. To correct possible bias, Clinical Endpoint Committees (CECs) have been employed as a critical element of trials to ensure consistent and high-quality endpoint evaluation, especially for cardiovascular endpoints. However, the efficiency and usefulness of adjudication have been debated. METHODS: The multiple imputation (MI) method was proposed to incorporate endpoint event uncertainty. In a simulation conducted to explain this methodology, the dichotomous outcome was imputed each time with subject-specific event probabilities. As the final step, the desired analysis was conducted based on all imputed data. This proposed method was further applied to real trial data from PARADIGM-HF. RESULTS: Compared with the conventional Cox model with adjudicated events only, the Cox MI method had higher power, even with a small number of uncertain events. It yielded more robust inferences regarding treatment effects and required a smaller sample size to achieve the same power. CONCLUSIONS: Instead of using dichotomous endpoint data, the MI method enables incorporation of event uncertainty and eliminates the need for categorizing endpoint events. In future trials, assigning a probability of event occurrence for each event may be preferable to a CEC assigning a dichotomous outcome. Considerable resources could be saved if endpoint events can be identified more simply and in a manner that maintains study power.
Authors: Christopher B Granger; Victor Vogel; Steve R Cummings; Peter Held; Fred Fiedorek; Mitzi Lawrence; Bruce Neal; Hiedi Reidies; Leanne Santarelli; Rosemary Schroyer; Norman L Stockbridge Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Kenneth W Mahaffey; Claes Held; Daniel M Wojdyla; Stefan K James; Hugo A Katus; Steen Husted; Philippe Gabriel Steg; Christopher P Cannon; Richard C Becker; Robert F Storey; Nardev S Khurmi; José C Nicolau; Cheuk-Man Yu; Diego Ardissino; Andrzej Budaj; Joao Morais; Debra Montgomery; Anders Himmelmann; Robert A Harrington; Lars Wallentin Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jonathan H Seltzer; J Rick Turner; Mary Jane Geiger; Giuseppe Rosano; Kenneth W Mahaffey; William B White; Mary Beth Sabol; Norman Stockbridge; Philip T Sager Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Nariman Sepehrvand; Yinggan Zheng; Paul W Armstrong; Robert Welsh; Shaun G Goodman; Wayne Tymchak; Fadi Khadour; Michael Chan; Dale Weiss; Justin A Ezekowitz Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Karen A Hicks; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Roxana Mehran; Steven E Nissen; Stephen D Wiviott; Billy Dunn; Scott D Solomon; John R Marler; John R Teerlink; Andrew Farb; David A Morrow; Shari L Targum; Cathy A Sila; Mary T Thanh Hai; Michael R Jaff; Hylton V Joffe; Donald E Cutlip; Akshay S Desai; Eldrin F Lewis; C Michael Gibson; Martin J Landray; A Michael Lincoff; Christopher J White; Steven S Brooks; Kenneth Rosenfield; Michael J Domanski; Alexandra J Lansky; John J V McMurray; James E Tcheng; Steven R Steinhubl; Paul Burton; Laura Mauri; Christopher M O'Connor; Marc A Pfeffer; H M James Hung; Norman L Stockbridge; Bernard R Chaitman; Robert J Temple Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kenneth W Mahaffey; Robert A Harrington; Martijn Akkerhuis; Neal S Kleiman; Lisa G Berdan; Brian S Crenshaw; Barbara E Tardiff; Christopher B Granger; Ingrid DeJong; Manju Bhapkar; Petr Widimsky; Ramón Corbalon; Kerry L Lee; Jaap W Deckers; Maarten L Simoons; Eric J Topol; Robert M Califf Journal: Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med Date: 2001-07-17