A hybrid automated event adjudication system for clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: In clinical trials, event adjudication is a process to review and confirm the accuracy of outcomes reported by site investigators. Despite efforts to automate the communication between a clinical-data-and-coordination center and an event adjudication committee, the review and confirmation of outcomes, as the core function of the process, still fully rely on human labor. To address this issue, we present an automated event adjudication system and its application in two randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Centrally executed by a clinical-data-and-coordination center, the automated event adjudication system automatedly assessed and classified outcomes in a clinical data management system. By checking clinically predefined criteria, the automated event adjudication system either confirmed or unconfirmed an outcome and automatedly updated its status in the database. It also served as a management tool to assist staff to oversee the process of event adjudication. The system has been applied in: (1) the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial and (2) the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (NAVIGATE ESUS) trial. The automated event adjudication system first screened outcomes reported on a case report form and confirmed those with data matched to preset definitions. For selected primary efficacy, secondary, and safety outcomes, the unconfirmed cases were referred to a human event adjudication committee for a final decision. In the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (NAVIGATE ESUS) trial, human adjudicators were given priority to review cases, while the automated event adjudication system took the lead in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial. RESULTS: Outcomes that were adjudicated in a hybrid model are discussed here. The COMPASS automated event adjudication system adjudicated 3283 primary efficacy outcomes and confirmed 1652 (50.3%): 132 (21.1%) strokes, 522 (53%) myocardial infarctions, and 998 (59.7%) causes of deaths. The NAVIGATE ESUS one adjudicated 737 cases of selected outcomes and confirmed 383 (52%): 219 (51.5%) strokes, 34 (42.5%) myocardial infarctions, 73 (54.9%) causes of deaths, and 57 (57.6%) major bleedings. After one deducts the time needed for migrating the system to a new study, the automated event adjudication system helped to reduce the time required for human review from approximately 1303 to 716.5 h for the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies trial and from 387 to 196 h for the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source trial. CONCLUSION: The automated event adjudication system in combination with human adjudicators provides a streamlined and efficient approach to event adjudication in clinical trials. To immediately apply automated event adjudication, one can first consider the automated event adjudication system and involve human assistance for cases unconfirmed by the former.

A comparison of approaches for adjudicating outcomes in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Incorrect classification of outcomes in clinical trials can lead to biased estimates of treatment effect and reduced power. Ensuring appropriate adjudication methods to minimize outcome misclassification is therefore essential. While there are many reported adjudication approaches, there is little consensus over which approach is best. METHODS: Under the assumption of non-differential assessment (i.e. that misclassification rates are the same in each treatment arm, as would typically be the case when outcome assessors are blinded), we use simulation and theoretical results to address four different questions about outcome adjudication: (a) How many assessors should be used? (b) When is it better to use onsite or central assessment? (c) Should central assessors adjudicate all outcomes, or only suspected events? (d) Should central assessment with multiple assessors be done independently or through group consensus? RESULTS: No one adjudication approach performs optimally in all settings. The optimal approach depends on the misclassification rates of site and central assessors, and the correlation between assessors. We found: (a) there will generally be little incremental benefit to using more than three assessors and, for outcomes with very high correlation between assessors, using one assessor is sufficient; (b) when choosing between site and central assessors, the assessor with the smallest misclassification rate should be chosen; when these rates are unknown, a combination of one site assessor and two central assessors will provide good results across a range of scenarios; (c) having central assessors adjudicate only suspected events will typically increase bias, and should be avoided, unless the threshold for sending outcomes for central assessment is extremely low; (d) central assessors can adjudicate either independently or in a group, and the preferred option should be dictated by whichever is expected to have the lowest misclassification rate. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome adjudication is of critical importance to ensure validity of trial results, although no one approach is optimal across all settings. Investigators should choose the best strategy based on the specific characteristics of their trial. Regardless of the adjudication strategy chosen, assessors should be qualified and receive appropriate training.

Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at 2 levels: results of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial at 24 months.

OBJECTIVE The authors compared the efficacy and safety of arthroplasty using the Prestige LP cervical disc with those of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of degenerative disc disease (DDD) at 2 adjacent levels. METHODS Patients from 30 investigational sites were randomized to 1 of 2 groups: investigational patients (209) underwent arthroplasty using a Prestige LP artificial disc, and control patients (188) underwent ACDF with a cortical ring allograft and anterior cervical plate. Patients were evaluated preoperatively, intraoperatively, and at 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Efficacy and safety outcomes were measured according to the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Numeric Rating Scales for neck and arm pain, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), gait abnormality, disc height, range of motion (investigational) or fusion (control), adverse events (AEs), additional surgeries, and neurological status. Treatment was considered an overall success when all 4 of the following criteria were met: 1) NDI score improvement of ≥ 15 points over the preoperative score, 2) maintenance or improvement in neurological status compared with preoperatively, 3) no serious AE caused by the implant or by the implant and surgical procedure, and 4) no additional surgery (supplemental fixation, revision, or nonelective implant removal). Independent statisticians performed Bayesian statistical analyses. RESULTS The 24-month rates of overall success were 81.4% for the investigational group and 69.4% for the control group. The posterior mean for overall success in the investigational group exceeded that in the control group by 0.112 (95% highest posterior density interval = 0.023 to 0.201) with a posterior probability of 1 for noninferiority and 0.993 for superiority, demonstrating the superiority of the investigational group for overall success. Noninferiority of the investigational group was demonstrated for all individual components of overall success and individual effectiveness end points, except for the SF-36 Mental Component Summary. The investigational group was superior to the control group for NDI success. The proportion of patients experiencing any AE was 93.3% (195/209) in the investigational group and 92.0% (173/188) in the control group, which were not statistically different. The rate of patients who reported any serious AE (Grade 3 or 4) was significantly higher in the control group (90 [47.9%] of 188) than in the investigational group (72 [34.4%] of 209) with a posterior probability of superiority of 0.996. Radiographic success was achieved in 51.0% (100/196) of the investigational patients (maintenance of motion without evidence of bridging bone) and 82.1% (119/145) of the control patients (fusion). At 24 months, heterotopic ossification was identified in 27.8% (55/198) of the superior levels and 36.4% (72/198) of the inferior levels of investigational patients. CONCLUSIONS Arthroplasty with the Prestige LP cervical disc is as effective and safe as ACDF for the treatment of cervical DDD at 2 contiguous levels and is an alternative treatment for intractable radiculopathy or myelopathy at 2 adjacent levels. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT00637156 ( clinicaltrials.gov ).

The Inaccuracy of Patient Recall for COPD Exacerbation Rate Estimation and Its Implications: Results from Central Adjudication.

BACKGROUND: COPD exacerbation incidence rates are often ascertained retrospectively through patient recall and self-reports. We compared exacerbation ascertainment through patient self-reports and single-physician chart review to central adjudication by a committee and explored determinants and consequences of misclassification. METHODS: Self-reported exacerbations (event-based definition) in 409 primary care patients with COPD participating in the International Collaborative Effort on Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: Exacerbation Risk Index Cohorts (ICE COLD ERIC) cohort were ascertained every 6 months over 3 years. Exacerbations were adjudicated by single experienced physicians and an adjudication committee who had information from patient charts. We assessed the accuracy (sensitivities and specificities) of self-reports and single-physician chart review against a central adjudication committee (AC) (reference standard). We used multinomial logistic regression and bootstrap stability analyses to explore determinants of misclassifications. RESULTS: The AC identified 648 exacerbations, corresponding to an incidence rate of 0.60 ± 0.83 exacerbations/patient-year and a cumulative incidence proportion of 58.9%. Patients self-reported 841 exacerbations (incidence rate, 0.75 ± 1.01; incidence proportion, 59.7%). The sensitivity and specificity of self-reports were 84% and 76%, respectively, those of single-physician chart review were between 89% and 96% and 87% and 99%, respectively. The multinomial regression model and bootstrap selection showed that having experienced more exacerbations was the only factor consistently associated with underreporting and overreporting of exacerbations (underreporters: relative risk ratio [RRR], 2.16; 95% CI, 1.76-2.65 and overreporters: RRR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.39-2.00). CONCLUSIONS: Patient 6-month recall of exacerbation events are inaccurate. This may lead to inaccurate estimates of incidence measures and underestimation of treatment effects. The use of multiple data sources combined with event adjudication could substantially reduce sample size requirements and possibly cost of studies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00706602.

Viruses detected by systematic multiplex polymerase chain reaction in adults with suspected community-acquired pneumonia attending emergency departments in France.

UNLABELLED: Infectious agents associated with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are under-studied. This study attempted to identify viruses from the upper respiratory tract in adults visiting emergency departments for clinically suspected CAP. Adults with suspected CAP enrolled in the ESCAPED study (impact of computed tomography on CAP diagnosis) had prospective nasopharyngeal (NP) samples studied by multiplex PCR (targeting 15 viruses and four intracellular bacteria). An adjudication committee composed of infectious disease specialists, pneumologists and radiologists blinded to PCR results reviewed patient records, including computed tomography and day 28 follow up, to categorize final diagnostic probability of CAP as definite, probable, possible, or excluded. Among the 254 patients enrolled, 78 (31%) had positive PCR, which detected viruses in 72/254 (28%) and intracellular bacteria in 8 (3%) patients. PCR was positive in 44/125 (35%) patients with definite CAP and 21/83 (25%) patients with excluded CAP. The most frequent organisms were influenza A/B virus in 27 (11%), rhinovirus in 20 (8%), coronavirus in seven (3%), respiratory syncytial virus in seven (3%) and Mycoplasma pneumoniae in eight (3%) of 254 patients. Proportion of rhinovirus was higher in patients with excluded CAP compared with other diagnostic categories (p = 0.01). No such difference was observed for influenza virus. Viruses seem common in adults attending emergency departments with suspected CAP. A concomitant clinical, radiological and biological analysis of the patient's chart can contribute to either confirm their role, or suggest upper respiratory tract infection or shedding. Their imputability and impact in early management of CAP deserve further studies. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01574066.

One-Year Safety of Olodaterol Once Daily via Respimat® in Patients with GOLD 2-4 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Results of a Pre-Specified Pooled Analysis.

The novel long-acting ß2-agonist olodaterol demonstrated an acceptable safety profile in short-term phase II clinical studies. This analysis of four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase III studies (1222.11, NCT00782210; 1222.12, NCT00782509; 1222.13, NCT00793624; 1222.14, NCT00796653) evaluated the long-term safety of olodaterol once daily (QD) in a large cohort of patients with moderate to very severe (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2-4) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The studies compared olodaterol (5 or 10 µg) QD via Respimat®, formoterol 12 µg twice daily (BID) via Aerolizer® (1222.13 and 1222.14), and placebo for 48 weeks. Patients continued receiving background maintenance therapy, with ∼60% receiving concomitant cardiovascular therapy and 25% having a history of concomitant cardiac disease. Pre-specified analyses of pooled data assessed the adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs in the whole population, and in subgroups with cardiac disease, along with in-depth electrocardiogram and Holter monitoring. In total, 3104 patients were included in the safety analysis: 876 received olodaterol 5 µg, 883 received olodaterol 10 µg, 885 received placebos, and 460 received formoterol 12 µg BID. Overall incidence of on-treatment AEs (71.2%), serious AEs (16.1%), and deaths (1.7%) were balanced across treatment groups. Respiratory and cardiovascular AEs, including major adverse cardiac events, were reported at similar frequencies in placebo and active treatment groups. The safety profiles of both olodaterol 5 µg (marketed and registered dose) and 10 µg QD delivered via Respimat® are comparable to placebo and formoterol BID in this population, with no safety signals identified.