Suppr超能文献

研究者报告的与中心裁定的主要不良心脏事件比较:COMPASS 试验的二次分析。

Comparison of Investigator-Reported vs Centrally Adjudicated Major Adverse Cardiac Events: A Secondary Analysis of the COMPASS Trial.

机构信息

Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University and Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Canada.

出版信息

JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Nov 1;5(11):e2243201. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.43201.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

In the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial, there was a significant reduction in the adjudicated primary outcome among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease randomized to dual pathway inhibition (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily) vs aspirin monotherapy, but not with rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin monotherapy. Whether the results are similar without adjudication is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of dual pathway inhibition (with rivaroxaban plus aspirin) or rivaroxaban monotherapy compared with aspirin monotherapy on investigator-reported CV events and to understand the extent of concordance between investigator-reported and centrally adjudicated clinical events.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a secondary analysis of the COMPASS trial, an international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial with a 3-by-2 partial factorial design that evaluated participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease receiving rivaroxaban plus aspirin, rivaroxaban monotherapy, or aspirin monotherapy. End points were collected by blinded site investigators and adjudicated by a blinded clinical end point committee. Data were analyzed from March 2013 through February 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants received dual inhibition pathway (2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg aspirin once daily), rivaroxaban monotherapy (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin monotherapy (100 mg once daily).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI). Adjudicated and investigator-reported end points were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 27 395 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.2 [7.9] years; 78.0% men) were assessed, including 9152 patients randomized to dual pathway inhibition, 9117 patients randomized to rivaroxaban monotherapy, and 9126 patients randomized to aspirin monotherapy. Adjudication reduced the number of events by 10% to 15% for most end points. Among investigator-reported end points, dual pathway inhibition significantly reduced the rate of the primary efficacy outcome compared with aspirin alone (411 patients [4.5%] vs 542 patients [5.9%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.66-0.85]; P < .001), with similar reduction in adjudicated end points, (379 patients [4.1%] vs 496 patients [5.4%]; HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.66-0.86]; P < .001). Likewise, effects on ischemic end points were highly concordant (κ statistic = 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93-0.95] for the primary composite end point). Unlike with adjudicated outcomes, there was a significant reduction in the primary end point with rivaroxaban monotherapy vs aspirin monotherapy using investigator-reported events (477 patients [5.2%] vs 542 patients [5.9%]; HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78-0.99]; P = .04) compared with adjudicated events (448 patients [4.9%] vs 496 patients [5.4%]; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.79-1.03]; P = .12).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This secondary analysis of the COMPASS trial found that whether assessed by blinded site investigators or adjudicators, dual pathway inhibition significantly reduced CV events among patients with stable atherosclerotic disease compared with aspirin plus placebo. These findings suggest that using investigator-reported events in blinded clinical trials may be a more efficient alternative to adjudication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01776424.

摘要

重要性

在心血管结局为使用抗凝策略的人(COMPASS)试验中,与阿司匹林单药治疗相比,稳定的动脉粥样硬化血管疾病患者随机接受双重途径抑制(利伐沙班 2.5mg 每日两次加阿司匹林 100mg 每日一次)治疗,其主要终点显著降低,但利伐沙班 5mg 每日两次与阿司匹林单药治疗相比无显著差异。未知未经裁决的结果是否相似。

目的

检查双重途径抑制(利伐沙班加阿司匹林)或利伐沙班单药治疗与阿司匹林单药治疗相比对研究者报告的心血管事件的影响,并了解研究者报告的临床事件与中心裁决的临床事件之间的一致性程度。

设计、设置和参与者:这是 COMPASS 试验的二次分析,该试验是一项国际、双盲、双模拟、随机临床试验,采用 3x2 部分因子设计,评估接受利伐沙班加阿司匹林、利伐沙班单药或阿司匹林单药治疗的稳定动脉粥样硬化血管疾病患者。终点由盲法现场研究者收集,并由盲法临床终点委员会裁决。数据于 2013 年 3 月至 2017 年 2 月进行分析。

干预措施

参与者接受双重抑制途径(利伐沙班 2.5mg 每日两次加阿司匹林 100mg 每日一次)、利伐沙班单药(5mg 每日两次)或阿司匹林单药(100mg 每日一次)治疗。

主要结果和测量

主要疗效终点为心血管(CV)死亡、中风或心肌梗死(MI)的复合。比较了裁决和研究者报告的终点。

结果

共有 27395 名患者(平均[标准差]年龄 68.2[7.9]岁;78.0%为男性)被评估,其中 9152 名患者被随机分配至双重途径抑制组,9117 名患者被随机分配至利伐沙班单药组,9126 名患者被随机分配至阿司匹林单药组。裁决将大多数终点的事件数量减少了 10%至 15%。在研究者报告的终点中,与阿司匹林单药治疗相比,双重途径抑制显著降低了主要疗效终点的发生率(411 例[4.5%] vs 542 例[5.9%];风险比[HR],0.75[95%CI,0.66-0.85];P<0.001),经裁决的终点也有类似的降低(379 例[4.1%] vs 496 例[5.4%];HR,0.76[95%CI,0.66-0.86];P<0.001)。同样,缺血性终点的效果高度一致(主要复合终点的κ统计量为 0.94[95%CI,0.93-0.95])。与裁决结果不同的是,与阿司匹林单药治疗相比,利伐沙班单药治疗显著降低了主要终点的发生率(477 例[5.2%] vs 542 例[5.9%];HR,0.88[95%CI,0.78-0.99];P=0.04),而与裁决结果相比(448 例[4.9%] vs 496 例[5.4%];HR,0.90[95%CI,0.79-1.03];P=0.12)。

结论和相关性

本研究对 COMPASS 试验进行了二次分析,发现无论由盲法现场研究者还是裁决者评估,与阿司匹林加安慰剂相比,双重途径抑制均显著降低了稳定动脉粥样硬化疾病患者的心血管事件。这些发现表明,在盲法临床试验中使用研究者报告的事件可能是一种比裁决更有效的替代方法。

试验注册

ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT01776424。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e580/9679876/308f5211e303/jamanetwopen-e2243201-g001.jpg

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