Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018 Nov 26;13(11):e0208142.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208142. eCollection 2018.

Central adjudication of serious adverse events did not affect trial's safety results: Data from the Efficacy of Nitric Oxide in Stroke (ENOS) trial

Peter J Godolphin  1   2 , Alan A Montgomery  1 , Lisa J Woodhouse  2 , Daniel Bereczki  3 , Eivind Berge  4 , Rónán Collins  5 , Exuperio Díez-Tejedor  6 , John Gommans  7 , Kennedy R Lees  8 , Serefnur Ozturk  9 , Stephen Phillips  10 , Stuart Pocock  11 , Kameshwar Prasad  12 , Szabolcs Szatmari  13 , Yongjun Wang  14 , Philip M Bath  2 , Nikola Sprigg  2 ; ENOS Investigators
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Central adjudication of serious adverse events did not affect trial's safety results: Data from the Efficacy of Nitric Oxide in Stroke (ENOS) trial

Peter J Godolphin et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background and purpose: Central adjudication of serious adverse events (SAEs) can be undertaken in clinical trials, especially for open-label studies where outcome assessment may be at risk of bias. This study explored the effect of central adjudication of SAEs on the safety results of the Efficacy of Nitric Oxide in Stroke (ENOS) Trial.

Methods: ENOS assigned patients with acute stroke at random to receive either transdermal glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) or no GTN and to Stop or Continue previous antihypertensive treatment. SAEs were reported by local investigators who were not blinded to treatment allocation. Central adjudicators, blinded to treatment allocation, reviewed the investigators reports and used evidence available to confirm or re-categorise the classification of event, likely causality, diagnosis and expectedness of event.

Results: Of 4011 patients enrolled in ENOS, 1473 SAEs were reported by local investigators; this was reduced to 1444 after the review by adjudicators, with 29 re-classified as not an SAE. There was fair agreement between investigators and adjudicators regarding likely causality, with 808 agreements and 644 disagreements (56% crude agreement, weighted kappa, κ = 0.31). Agreement increased upon dichotomisation of the causality categories, with 1432 agreements and 20 disagreements (99% crude agreement, kappa = 0.54). Repeating the main trial safety analysis with investigator reported events showed that adjudication had no effect on the main trial safety conclusions.

Conclusions: In a large trial, with many SAEs reported, central adjudication of these events did not affect trial conclusions. This suggests that adjudication of SAEs in a clinical trial where the intervention already has a well-established safety profile may not be necessary. Potential efficiency savings (financial, logistical) can be made through not adjudicating SAEs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Agreement on serious adverse event diagnosis between central adjudicators and local investigators.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Granger CB, Vogel V, Cummings SR, Held P, Fiedorek F, Lawrence M, et al. Do we need to adjudicate major clinical events? Clinical trials (London, England). 2008;5(1):56–60. Epub 2008/02/20. 10.1177/1740774507087972 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pogue J, Walter SD, Yusuf S. Evaluating the benefit of event adjudication of cardiovascular outcomes in large simple RCTs. Clinical trials (London, England). 2009;6(3):239–51. Epub 2009/06/17. 10.1177/1740774509105223 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Walter SD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, King D, Troyan S. Outcome assessment for clinical trials: how many adjudicators do we need? Canadian Lung Oncology Group. Controlled clinical trials. 1997;18(1):27–42. Epub 1997/02/01. . - PubMed
    1. Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2012;344:e1119 Epub 2012/03/01. 10.1136/bmj.e1119 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne. 2013;185(4):E201–11. Epub 2013/01/30. 10.1503/cmaj.120744 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3589328. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms