Methods for Employing Information About Uncertainty of Ascertainment of Events in Clinical Trials
- PMID: 32870460
- DOI: 10.1007/s43441-020-00206-3
Methods for Employing Information About Uncertainty of Ascertainment of Events in Clinical Trials
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.
References
-
- Hicks KA, Mahaffey KW, Mehran R, et al. 2017 Cardiovascular and stroke endpoint definitions for clinical trials. Circulation. 2018;137(9):961–72. - PubMed
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- Granger CB, Vogel V, Cummings SR, et al. Do we need to adjudicate major clinical events? Clin Trials. 2008;5(1):56–60. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
