Suppr超能文献

国际临床试验中中央临床事件委员会与现场研究者对心肌梗死终点评估的分歧:PURSUIT研究综述

Disagreements between central clinical events committee and site investigator assessments of myocardial infarction endpoints in an international clinical trial: review of the PURSUIT study.

作者信息

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

机构信息

Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

出版信息

Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2001 Jul 17;2(4):187-194. doi: 10.1186/cvm-2-4-187.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

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.

摘要

背景

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。

方法

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。

结果

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。

结论

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。

相似文献

2
Systematic adjudication of myocardial infarction end-points in an international clinical trial.
Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2001 Jul 17;2(4):180-186. doi: 10.1186/cvm-2-4-180.
4
Ticagrelor effects on myocardial infarction and the impact of event adjudication in the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) trial.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Apr 22;63(15):1493-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.01.038. Epub 2014 Feb 19.
5
Central Adjudication Identified Additional and Prognostically Important Myocardial Infarctions in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jul;12(7):e007342. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.007342. Epub 2019 Jul 12.
7
Comparative Reductions in Investigator-Reported and Adjudicated Ischemic Events in REDUCE-IT.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Oct 12;78(15):1525-1537. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.08.009.

引用本文的文献

1
Reducing risk of bias in interventional studies during their design and conduct: a scoping review.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025 Apr 1;25(1):85. doi: 10.1186/s12874-025-02467-8.
2
On estimation of overall treatment effects in multiregional clinical trials under a discrete random effects model.
Stat Methods Med Res. 2025 Apr;34(4):735-750. doi: 10.1177/09622802251319120. Epub 2025 Mar 20.
4
To Adjudicate or Not Adjudicate: That Is the Question.
JACC CardioOncol. 2022 Dec 20;4(5):657-659. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccao.2022.11.003. eCollection 2022 Dec.
5
Radiologists and Clinical Trials: Part 1 The Truth About Reader Disagreements.
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2021 Nov;55(6):1111-1121. doi: 10.1007/s43441-021-00316-6. Epub 2021 Jul 6.
6
Methods for Employing Information About Uncertainty of Ascertainment of Events in Clinical Trials.
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2021 Jan;55(1):197-211. doi: 10.1007/s43441-020-00206-3. Epub 2020 Sep 1.
7
Evaluating Clinical Outcomes From Administrative Databases.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Aug 10;13(15):1786-1788. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.04.023. Epub 2020 Jul 15.
9
Bleeding assessment and bleeding severity in thrombocytopenic patients undergoing invasive procedures.
Transfusion. 2020 Mar;60(3):637-649. doi: 10.1111/trf.15670. Epub 2020 Jan 31.

本文引用的文献

1
Systematic adjudication of myocardial infarction end-points in an international clinical trial.
Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2001 Jul 17;2(4):180-186. doi: 10.1186/cvm-2-4-180.
3
Inhibition of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa with eptifibatide in patients with acute coronary syndromes.
N Engl J Med. 1998 Aug 13;339(7):436-43. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199808133390704.
4
A comparison of aspirin plus tirofiban with aspirin plus heparin for unstable angina.
N Engl J Med. 1998 May 21;338(21):1498-505. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199805213382103.
6
Myonecrosis after revascularization procedures.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998 Feb;31(2):241-51. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(97)00506-8.
10

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验