Endpoint adjudication in cardiovascular clinical trials
Graphical Abstract Graphical Abstract Possible advantages and disadvantages of endpoint adjudication in cardiovascular clinical trials and factors that determine the utility of endpoint adjudication. Abstract Endpoint adjudication (EA) is a common feature of contemporary randomized controlled trials...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European heart journal 2023-12, Vol.44 (46), p.4835-4846 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 4846 |
---|---|
container_issue | 46 |
container_start_page | 4835 |
container_title | European heart journal |
container_volume | 44 |
creator | Khan, Muhammad Shahzeb Usman, Muhammad Shariq Van Spall, Harriette G C Greene, Stephen J Baqal, Omar Felker, Gary Michael Bhatt, Deepak L Januzzi, James L Butler, Javed |
description | Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract
Possible advantages and disadvantages of endpoint adjudication in cardiovascular clinical trials and factors that determine the utility of endpoint adjudication.
Abstract
Endpoint adjudication (EA) is a common feature of contemporary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cardiovascular medicine. Endpoint adjudication refers to a process wherein a group of expert reviewers, known as the clinical endpoint committee (CEC), verify potential endpoints identified by site investigators. Events that are determined by the CEC to meet pre-specified trial definitions are then utilized for analysis. The rationale behind the use of EA is that it may lessen the potential misclassification of clinical events, thereby reducing statistical noise and bias. However, it has been questioned whether this is universally true, especially given that EA significantly increases the time, effort, and resources required to conduct a trial. Herein, we compare the summary estimates obtained using adjudicated vs. non-adjudicated site designated endpoints in major cardiovascular RCTs in which both were reported. Based on these data, we lay out a framework to determine which trials may warrant EA and where it may be redundant. The value of EA is likely greater when cardiovascular trials have nuanced primary endpoints, endpoint definitions that align poorly with practice, sub-optimal data completeness, greater operator variability, and lack of blinding. EA may not be needed if the primary endpoint is all-cause death or all-cause hospitalization. In contrast, EA is likely merited for more nuanced endpoints such as myocardial infarction, bleeding, worsening heart failure as an outpatient, unstable angina, or transient ischaemic attack. A risk-based approach to adjudication can potentially allow compromise between costs and accuracy. This would involve adjudication of a small proportion of events, with further adjudication done if inconsistencies are detected. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad718 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2887478417</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/eurheartj/ehad718</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2887478417</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-fd345de7789737198ec6e56d66f5156ae4fb90015a1667de10aafcf6597252333</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkDtPwzAYRS0EoqXwA1hQRgZC7Tj-bI-oKg-pEgtIbJHrh-oqjYMdI_HvCWrpzHSHe-4dDkLXBN8TLOnc5rixKg7bud0ow4k4QVPCqqqUULNTNMVEshJAfEzQRUpbjLEAAudoQrmkDCibIr7sTB98NxTKbLPxWg0-dIXvCq2i8eFLJZ1bFQvd-m5s22KIXrXpEp25MezVIWfo_XH5tnguV69PL4uHVakpFUPpDK2ZsZwLySknUlgNloEBcIwwULZ2a4kxYYoAcGMJVsppB0zyilWU0hm63f_2MXxmm4Zm55O2bas6G3JqKiF4zUVN-IiSPapjSCla1_TR71T8bghufn01R1_Nwde4uTnc5_XOmuPiT9AI3O2BkPt__P0AQhB5bQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2887478417</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Endpoint adjudication in cardiovascular clinical trials</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals Current</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Khan, Muhammad Shahzeb ; Usman, Muhammad Shariq ; Van Spall, Harriette G C ; Greene, Stephen J ; Baqal, Omar ; Felker, Gary Michael ; Bhatt, Deepak L ; Januzzi, James L ; Butler, Javed</creator><creatorcontrib>Khan, Muhammad Shahzeb ; Usman, Muhammad Shariq ; Van Spall, Harriette G C ; Greene, Stephen J ; Baqal, Omar ; Felker, Gary Michael ; Bhatt, Deepak L ; Januzzi, James L ; Butler, Javed</creatorcontrib><description>Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract
Possible advantages and disadvantages of endpoint adjudication in cardiovascular clinical trials and factors that determine the utility of endpoint adjudication.
Abstract
Endpoint adjudication (EA) is a common feature of contemporary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cardiovascular medicine. Endpoint adjudication refers to a process wherein a group of expert reviewers, known as the clinical endpoint committee (CEC), verify potential endpoints identified by site investigators. Events that are determined by the CEC to meet pre-specified trial definitions are then utilized for analysis. The rationale behind the use of EA is that it may lessen the potential misclassification of clinical events, thereby reducing statistical noise and bias. However, it has been questioned whether this is universally true, especially given that EA significantly increases the time, effort, and resources required to conduct a trial. Herein, we compare the summary estimates obtained using adjudicated vs. non-adjudicated site designated endpoints in major cardiovascular RCTs in which both were reported. Based on these data, we lay out a framework to determine which trials may warrant EA and where it may be redundant. The value of EA is likely greater when cardiovascular trials have nuanced primary endpoints, endpoint definitions that align poorly with practice, sub-optimal data completeness, greater operator variability, and lack of blinding. EA may not be needed if the primary endpoint is all-cause death or all-cause hospitalization. In contrast, EA is likely merited for more nuanced endpoints such as myocardial infarction, bleeding, worsening heart failure as an outpatient, unstable angina, or transient ischaemic attack. A risk-based approach to adjudication can potentially allow compromise between costs and accuracy. This would involve adjudication of a small proportion of events, with further adjudication done if inconsistencies are detected.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0195-668X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1522-9645</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad718</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37935635</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Angina, Unstable ; Heart Failure - complications ; Hemorrhage - complications ; Humans ; Ischemic Attack, Transient - complications ; Myocardial Infarction - etiology</subject><ispartof>European heart journal, 2023-12, Vol.44 (46), p.4835-4846</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com 2023</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-fd345de7789737198ec6e56d66f5156ae4fb90015a1667de10aafcf6597252333</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-fd345de7789737198ec6e56d66f5156ae4fb90015a1667de10aafcf6597252333</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1250-6351 ; 0000-0001-7683-4720 ; 0000-0001-9747-8892</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37935635$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Khan, Muhammad Shahzeb</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Usman, Muhammad Shariq</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Spall, Harriette G C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greene, Stephen J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baqal, Omar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Felker, Gary Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhatt, Deepak L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Januzzi, James L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Butler, Javed</creatorcontrib><title>Endpoint adjudication in cardiovascular clinical trials</title><title>European heart journal</title><addtitle>Eur Heart J</addtitle><description>Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract
Possible advantages and disadvantages of endpoint adjudication in cardiovascular clinical trials and factors that determine the utility of endpoint adjudication.
Abstract
Endpoint adjudication (EA) is a common feature of contemporary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cardiovascular medicine. Endpoint adjudication refers to a process wherein a group of expert reviewers, known as the clinical endpoint committee (CEC), verify potential endpoints identified by site investigators. Events that are determined by the CEC to meet pre-specified trial definitions are then utilized for analysis. The rationale behind the use of EA is that it may lessen the potential misclassification of clinical events, thereby reducing statistical noise and bias. However, it has been questioned whether this is universally true, especially given that EA significantly increases the time, effort, and resources required to conduct a trial. Herein, we compare the summary estimates obtained using adjudicated vs. non-adjudicated site designated endpoints in major cardiovascular RCTs in which both were reported. Based on these data, we lay out a framework to determine which trials may warrant EA and where it may be redundant. The value of EA is likely greater when cardiovascular trials have nuanced primary endpoints, endpoint definitions that align poorly with practice, sub-optimal data completeness, greater operator variability, and lack of blinding. EA may not be needed if the primary endpoint is all-cause death or all-cause hospitalization. In contrast, EA is likely merited for more nuanced endpoints such as myocardial infarction, bleeding, worsening heart failure as an outpatient, unstable angina, or transient ischaemic attack. A risk-based approach to adjudication can potentially allow compromise between costs and accuracy. This would involve adjudication of a small proportion of events, with further adjudication done if inconsistencies are detected.</description><subject>Angina, Unstable</subject><subject>Heart Failure - complications</subject><subject>Hemorrhage - complications</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Ischemic Attack, Transient - complications</subject><subject>Myocardial Infarction - etiology</subject><issn>0195-668X</issn><issn>1522-9645</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkDtPwzAYRS0EoqXwA1hQRgZC7Tj-bI-oKg-pEgtIbJHrh-oqjYMdI_HvCWrpzHSHe-4dDkLXBN8TLOnc5rixKg7bud0ow4k4QVPCqqqUULNTNMVEshJAfEzQRUpbjLEAAudoQrmkDCibIr7sTB98NxTKbLPxWg0-dIXvCq2i8eFLJZ1bFQvd-m5s22KIXrXpEp25MezVIWfo_XH5tnguV69PL4uHVakpFUPpDK2ZsZwLySknUlgNloEBcIwwULZ2a4kxYYoAcGMJVsppB0zyilWU0hm63f_2MXxmm4Zm55O2bas6G3JqKiF4zUVN-IiSPapjSCla1_TR71T8bghufn01R1_Nwde4uTnc5_XOmuPiT9AI3O2BkPt__P0AQhB5bQ</recordid><startdate>20231207</startdate><enddate>20231207</enddate><creator>Khan, Muhammad Shahzeb</creator><creator>Usman, Muhammad Shariq</creator><creator>Van Spall, Harriette G C</creator><creator>Greene, Stephen J</creator><creator>Baqal, Omar</creator><creator>Felker, Gary Michael</creator><creator>Bhatt, Deepak L</creator><creator>Januzzi, James L</creator><creator>Butler, Javed</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1250-6351</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7683-4720</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9747-8892</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20231207</creationdate><title>Endpoint adjudication in cardiovascular clinical trials</title><author>Khan, Muhammad Shahzeb ; Usman, Muhammad Shariq ; Van Spall, Harriette G C ; Greene, Stephen J ; Baqal, Omar ; Felker, Gary Michael ; Bhatt, Deepak L ; Januzzi, James L ; Butler, Javed</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-fd345de7789737198ec6e56d66f5156ae4fb90015a1667de10aafcf6597252333</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Angina, Unstable</topic><topic>Heart Failure - complications</topic><topic>Hemorrhage - complications</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Ischemic Attack, Transient - complications</topic><topic>Myocardial Infarction - etiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Khan, Muhammad Shahzeb</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Usman, Muhammad Shariq</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Spall, Harriette G C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greene, Stephen J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baqal, Omar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Felker, Gary Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bhatt, Deepak L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Januzzi, James L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Butler, Javed</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European heart journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Khan, Muhammad Shahzeb</au><au>Usman, Muhammad Shariq</au><au>Van Spall, Harriette G C</au><au>Greene, Stephen J</au><au>Baqal, Omar</au><au>Felker, Gary Michael</au><au>Bhatt, Deepak L</au><au>Januzzi, James L</au><au>Butler, Javed</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Endpoint adjudication in cardiovascular clinical trials</atitle><jtitle>European heart journal</jtitle><addtitle>Eur Heart J</addtitle><date>2023-12-07</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>46</issue><spage>4835</spage><epage>4846</epage><pages>4835-4846</pages><issn>0195-668X</issn><eissn>1522-9645</eissn><abstract>Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract
Possible advantages and disadvantages of endpoint adjudication in cardiovascular clinical trials and factors that determine the utility of endpoint adjudication.
Abstract
Endpoint adjudication (EA) is a common feature of contemporary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cardiovascular medicine. Endpoint adjudication refers to a process wherein a group of expert reviewers, known as the clinical endpoint committee (CEC), verify potential endpoints identified by site investigators. Events that are determined by the CEC to meet pre-specified trial definitions are then utilized for analysis. The rationale behind the use of EA is that it may lessen the potential misclassification of clinical events, thereby reducing statistical noise and bias. However, it has been questioned whether this is universally true, especially given that EA significantly increases the time, effort, and resources required to conduct a trial. Herein, we compare the summary estimates obtained using adjudicated vs. non-adjudicated site designated endpoints in major cardiovascular RCTs in which both were reported. Based on these data, we lay out a framework to determine which trials may warrant EA and where it may be redundant. The value of EA is likely greater when cardiovascular trials have nuanced primary endpoints, endpoint definitions that align poorly with practice, sub-optimal data completeness, greater operator variability, and lack of blinding. EA may not be needed if the primary endpoint is all-cause death or all-cause hospitalization. In contrast, EA is likely merited for more nuanced endpoints such as myocardial infarction, bleeding, worsening heart failure as an outpatient, unstable angina, or transient ischaemic attack. A risk-based approach to adjudication can potentially allow compromise between costs and accuracy. This would involve adjudication of a small proportion of events, with further adjudication done if inconsistencies are detected.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>37935635</pmid><doi>10.1093/eurheartj/ehad718</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1250-6351</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7683-4720</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9747-8892</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0195-668X |
ispartof | European heart journal, 2023-12, Vol.44 (46), p.4835-4846 |
issn | 0195-668X 1522-9645 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2887478417 |
source | MEDLINE; Oxford University Press Journals Current; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Angina, Unstable Heart Failure - complications Hemorrhage - complications Humans Ischemic Attack, Transient - complications Myocardial Infarction - etiology |
title | Endpoint adjudication in cardiovascular clinical trials |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T07%3A13%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Endpoint%20adjudication%20in%20cardiovascular%20clinical%20trials&rft.jtitle=European%20heart%20journal&rft.au=Khan,%20Muhammad%20Shahzeb&rft.date=2023-12-07&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=46&rft.spage=4835&rft.epage=4846&rft.pages=4835-4846&rft.issn=0195-668X&rft.eissn=1522-9645&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad718&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2887478417%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2887478417&rft_id=info:pmid/37935635&rft_oup_id=10.1093/eurheartj/ehad718&rfr_iscdi=true |