Literature DB >> 32870460

Methods for Employing Information About Uncertainty of Ascertainment of Events in Clinical Trials.

Yiming Chen1,2, John Lawrence3, H M James Hung4, Norman Stockbridge5.   

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.

Keywords:  Adjudication; Dichotomous endpoint; Event uncertainty; Multiple imputation

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32870460     DOI: 10.1007/s43441-020-00206-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci        ISSN: 2168-4790            Impact factor:   1.778


  23 in total

Review 1.  Do we need to adjudicate major clinical events?

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

2.  Evaluating the benefit of event adjudication of cardiovascular outcomes in large simple RCTs.

Authors:  Janice Pogue; Stephen D Walter; Salim Yusuf
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 2.486

3.  Logistic regression when the outcome is measured with uncertainty.

Authors:  L S Magder; J P Hughes
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1997-07-15       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  Ticagrelor effects on myocardial infarction and the impact of event adjudication in the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) trial.

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

5.  Centralized adjudication of cardiovascular end points in cardiovascular and noncardiovascular pharmacologic trials: a report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium.

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

6.  Classification of Deaths in Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials.

Authors:  David A Morrow; Stephen D Wiviott
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  Clinical event adjudication in cardiovascular device trials: An Food and Drug Administration perspective.

Authors:  Andrew Farb; Bram D Zuckerman
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 4.749

8.  Alignment of site versus adjudication committee-based diagnosis with patient outcomes: Insights from the Providing Rapid Out of Hospital Acute Cardiovascular Treatment 3 trial.

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

Review 9.  2017 Cardiovascular and Stroke Endpoint Definitions for Clinical Trials.

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

10.  Disagreements between central clinical events committee and site investigator assessments of myocardial infarction endpoints in an international clinical trial: review of the PURSUIT study.

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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.