Mahaffey Kenneth W, Harrington Robert A, Akkerhuis Martijn, Kleiman Neal S, Berdan Lisa G, Crenshaw Brian S, Tardiff Barbara E, Granger Christopher B, DeJong Ingrid, Bhapkar Manju, Widimsky Petr, Corbalon Ramón, Lee Kerry L, Deckers Jaap W, Simoons Maarten L, Topol Eric J, Califf Robert M
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2001 Jul 17;2(4):187-194. doi: 10.1186/cvm-2-4-187.
Limited information has been published regarding how specific processes for event adjudication can affect event rates in trials. We reviewed nonfatal myocardial infarctions (MIs) reported by site investigators in the international Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin (Eptifibatide) Therapy (PURSUIT) trial and those adjudicated by a central clinical events committee (CEC) to determine the reasons for differences in event rates. METHODS: The PURSUIT trial randomised 10,948 patients with acute coronary syndromes to receive eptifibatide or placebo. The primary end-point was death or post-enrolment MI at 30 days as assessed by the CEC; this end-point was also constructed using site-reported events. The CEC identified suspected MIs by systematic review of clinical, cardiac enzyme, and electrocardiographic data. RESULTS: The CEC identified 5005 (46%) suspected events, of which 1415 (28%) were adjudicated as MI. The site investigator and CEC assessments of whether a MI had occurred disagreed in 983 (20%) of the 5005 patients with suspected MI, mostly reflecting site misclassification of post-enrolment MIs (as enrolment MIs) or underreported periprocedural MIs. Patients for whom the CEC and site investigator agreed that no end-point MI had occurred had the lowest mortality at 30 days and between 30 days and 6 months, and those with agreement that a MI had occurred had the highest mortality. CONCLUSION: CEC adjudication provides a standard, systematic, independent, and unbiased assessment of end-points, particularly for trials that span geographic regions and clinical practice settings. Understanding the review process and reasons for disagreement between CEC and site investigator assessments of MI is important to design future trials and interpret event rates between trials.
关于事件判定的具体流程如何影响试验中的事件发生率,已发表的信息有限。我们回顾了国际不稳定型心绞痛血小板糖蛋白IIb/IIIa受体抑制试验(血小板糖蛋白IIb/IIIa受体拮抗剂依替巴肽治疗不稳定型心绞痛试验,PURSUIT)中各研究点研究者报告的非致命性心肌梗死(MI)以及由中央临床事件委员会(CEC)判定的非致命性心肌梗死,以确定事件发生率存在差异的原因。
PURSUIT试验将10948例急性冠状动脉综合征患者随机分为接受依替巴肽或安慰剂治疗两组。主要终点为CEC评估的30天时死亡或入组后心肌梗死;该终点也根据研究点报告的事件确定。CEC通过系统回顾临床、心脏酶学和心电图数据来识别疑似心肌梗死。
CEC识别出5005例(46%)疑似事件,其中1415例(28%)被判定为心肌梗死。在5005例疑似心肌梗死患者中,有983例(20%)研究点研究者与CEC对是否发生心肌梗死的评估不一致,这主要反映出研究点将入组后心肌梗死错误分类为入组时心肌梗死或围手术期心肌梗死报告不足。CEC与研究点研究者均认为未发生终点心肌梗死的患者在30天时以及30天至6个月期间死亡率最低,而双方均认为发生了心肌梗死的患者死亡率最高。
CEC判定为终点提供了标准、系统、独立且无偏倚的评估,尤其适用于跨越不同地理区域和临床实践环境的试验。了解CEC与研究点研究者对心肌梗死评估之间的审查过程及不一致原因,对于设计未来试验和解释不同试验间的事件发生率非常重要。