Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Viewpoint: Central adjudication of myocardial infarction in outcome-driven clinical trials - Common patterns in TRITON, RECORD, and PLATO?

Journal: Thrombosis and Haemostasis
ISSN: 0340-6245
Topic:

Theme Issue
European Vascular Biology Meeting 2011 (Part 1)

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1160/TH12-04-0251
Issue: 2012: 108/3 (Sep) pp. 405-588
Pages: 412-414

Viewpoint: Central adjudication of myocardial infarction in outcome-driven clinical trials - Common patterns in TRITON, RECORD, and PLATO?

See also Editorial by Verheugt

V. L. Serebruany (1), D. Atar (2)

(1) HeartDrug™ Research Laboratories, Johns Hopkins University, Towson, Maryland, USA; (2) Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

Summary

Central adjudication in randomised controlled outcome-driven trials represents a traditional approach to maintain data integrity by applying uniformed rules for assessment of clinical events. It was the purpose of this investigation to determine the patterns of myocardial infarction (MI) adjudication in the TRITON, RECORD, and PLATO trials. We were matching centrally-adjudicated MI’s (CAMI’s) from the official trial publication with the site-reported MI (SRMI’s) count from the Food and Drug Administration’s secondary analyses for the investigational compounds prasugrel (TRITON), rosiglitazone (RECORD), and ticagrelor (PLATO). CAMI numbers showed a remarkable discrepancy to SRMI’s by more than a doubling of the difference: from 72 to 145 events in TRITON favoring prasugrel (from a hazard ratio [HR]=0.76, p=0.08; to a HR=0.76, p<0.001), and from 44 to 89 events in favour of ticagrelor in PLATO (from a HR=0.94, p=0.095; to a HR=0.84, p<0.001). In contrast, in the RECORD trial, the CAMI count was less than the SRMI count (from 24 to 8 events, from a HR=1.42, p=0.93; to a HR=1.14, p=0.96), in this case diminishing cardiovascular hazards in favour of rosiglitazone. In conclusion, central adjudication in the TRITON, the RECORD, and the PLATO trial turned out to have a critical impact on study outcomes. Trial publications should in the future include site-reported major efficacy and safety endpoints to preserve data integrity. The regulatory authorities should consider independent audits when there is a major disagreement between centrally adjudicated and site reported events influencing the results of a major clinical trial.

Keywords

Clinical trials, myocardial infarction, prasugrel, ticagrelor, rosiglitazone, event adjudication

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.1160/TH12-04-0251

You may also be interested in...

1.

D. Aronson (1, 2)

Thromb Haemost 2014 112 1: -

http://dx.doi.org/10.1160/TH13-09-0801

2.

See also Editorial by Huber, Lip

V. L. Serebruany (1), J. J. DiNicolantonio (2)

Thromb Haemost 2013 110 1: 5-10

http://dx.doi.org/10.1160/TH13-02-0142

3.

V. L. Serebruany (1)

Thromb Haemost 2010 103 2: 259-261

http://dx.doi.org/10.1160/TH09-10-0695



Thrombosis News

Mobile technology identifies people with unknown atrial fibrillation at high risk of stroke – article published in Thrombosis and Haemostasis

The article “Feasibility and cost effectiveness of stroke prevention through community screening...

TH 111.4

The April 2014 TH 111.4 issue of Thrombosis and Haemostasis is a Theme Issue by Guest Editor B....

TH 111.3

Women with atrial fibrillation have a much higher risk for thromboembolic stroke than men suffering...