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
. 2021 Jan;55(1):197-211.
doi: 10.1007/s43441-020-00206-3. Epub 2020 Sep 1.

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

Affiliations

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

Yiming Chen et al. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2021 Jan.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Hicks KA, Mahaffey KW, Mehran R, et al. 2017 Cardiovascular and stroke endpoint definitions for clinical trials. Circulation. 2018;137(9):961–72. - PubMed
    1. Farb A, Zuckerman BD. Clinical event adjudication in cardiovascular device trials: a Food and Drug Administration perspective. Am Heart J. 2017;191:62–4. - PubMed
    1. Seltzer JH, Turner JR, Geiger MJ, et al. Centralized adjudication of cardiovascular end points in cardiovascular and noncardiovascular pharmacologic trials: a report from the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium. Am Heart J. 2015;169(2):197–204. - PubMed
    1. Sepehrvand N, Zheng Y, Armstrong PW, et al. Alignment of site versus adjudication committee-based diagnosis with patient outcomes: insights from the Providing Rapid Out of Hospital Acute Cardiovascular Treatment 3 trial. Clin Trials. 2016;13(2):140–8. - PubMed
    1. Granger CB, Vogel V, Cummings SR, et al. Do we need to adjudicate major clinical events? Clin Trials. 2008;5(1):56–60. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources