Suppr超能文献

当代所有患者冠状动脉支架研究中的临床终点判定:方法学和外部验证。

Clinical endpoint adjudication in a contemporary all-comers coronary stent investigation: methodology and external validation.

机构信息

Cardialysis, Clinical Research Management & Core Laboratories, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Contemp Clin Trials. 2013 Jan;34(1):53-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2012.08.012. Epub 2012 Sep 10.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Globalisation in coronary stent research calls for harmonization of clinical endpoint definitions and event adjudication. Little has been published about the various processes used for event adjudication or their impact on outcome reporting.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a validation of the clinical event committee (CEC) adjudication process on 100 suspected events in the RESOLUTE All-comers trial (Resolute-AC). Two experienced Clinical Research Organisations (CRO) that had already extensive internal validation processes in place, participated in the study. After initial adjudication by the primary-CEC, events were cross-adjudicated by an external-CEC using the same definitions. Major discrepancies affecting the primary end point of target-lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or clinically-indicated target-lesion revascularization (CI-TLR), were analysed by an independent oversight committee who provided recommendations for harmonization. Discordant adjudications were reconsidered by the primary CEC. Subsequently, the RAC database was interrogated for cases that based on these recommendations merited re-adjudication and these cases were also re-adjudicated by the primary CEC. Final discrepancies in adjudication of individual components of TLF occurred in 7 out of 100 events in 5 patients. Discrepancies for the (hierarchical) primary endpoint occurred in 5 events (2 cardiac deaths and 3 TV-MI). After application of harmonization recommendations to the overall RAC population (n=2292), the primary CEC adjudicated 3 additional clinical-TLRs and considered 1 TV-MI as no event.

CONCLUSIONS

A harmonization process provided a high level of concordance for event adjudication and improved accuracy for final event reporting. These findings suggest it is feasible to pool clinical event outcome data across clinical trials even when different CECs are responsible for event adjudication.

摘要

背景

冠状动脉支架研究的全球化呼吁协调临床终点定义和事件裁决。关于用于事件裁决的各种过程或其对结果报告的影响,发表的内容很少。

方法和结果

我们对 RESOLUTE 所有患者试验(RESOLUTE-AC)中的 100 例疑似事件进行了临床事件委员会(CEC)裁决过程的验证。两家已经有了广泛的内部验证流程的经验丰富的临床研究组织(CRO)参与了这项研究。在主要 CEC 进行初步裁决后,外部 CEC 使用相同的定义对事件进行交叉裁决。独立监督委员会分析了影响主要终点靶病变失败(TLF)的重大差异,TLF 是心脏死亡、靶血管心肌梗死(TV-MI)或临床指示的靶病变血运重建(CI-TLR)的复合终点。独立监督委员会提供了协调建议。对主要 CEC 进行了重新考虑。随后,根据这些建议,对 RAC 数据库进行了检查,发现有一些病例需要重新裁决,这些病例也由主要 CEC 重新裁决。在 5 名患者的 100 例事件中,有 7 例出现 TLF 个别组成部分的裁决分歧。在 5 例事件(2 例心脏死亡和 3 例 TV-MI)中出现了(分层)主要终点的分歧。在将协调建议应用于整个 RAC 人群(n=2292)后,主要 CEC 裁决了 3 例额外的临床 TLR,并认为 1 例 TV-MI 为非事件。

结论

协调过程为事件裁决提供了高度的一致性,并提高了最终事件报告的准确性。这些发现表明,即使不同的 CEC 负责事件裁决,也可以在临床试验之间汇总临床事件结果数据。

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