Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate dose of aspirin to lower the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke and to minimize major bleeding in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a subject of controversy. METHODS: Using an open-label, pragmatic design, we randomly assigned patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to a strategy of 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin per day. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding, also assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 15,076 patients were followed for a median of 26.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 19.0 to 34.9). Before randomization, 13,537 (96.0% of those with available information on previous aspirin use) were already taking aspirin, and 85.3% of these patients were previously taking 81 mg of daily aspirin. Death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke occurred in 590 patients (estimated percentage, 7.28%) in the 81-mg group and 569 patients (estimated percentage, 7.51%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.14). Hospitalization for major bleeding occurred in 53 patients (estimated percentage, 0.63%) in the 81-mg group and 44 patients (estimated percentage, 0.60%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.77). Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching than those assigned to 81 mg (41.6% vs. 7.1%) and fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose (434 days [IQR, 139 to 737] vs. 650 days [IQR, 415 to 922]). CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease, there was substantial dose switching to 81 mg of daily aspirin and no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between patients assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; ADAPTABLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02697916.).

Good Clinical Practice Guidance and Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Balancing the Best of Both Worlds.

Randomized, clinical trials are commonly regarded as the highest level of evidence to support clinical decisions. Good Clinical Practice guidelines have been constructed to provide an ethical and scientific quality standard for trials that involve human subjects in a manner aligned with the Declaration of Helsinki. Originally designed to provide a unified standard of trial data to support submission to regulatory authorities, the principles may also be applied to other studies of human subjects. Although the application of Good Clinical Practice principles generally led to improvements in the quality and consistency of trial operations, these principles have also contributed to increasing trial complexity and costs. Alternatively, the growing availability of electronic health record data has facilitated the possibility for streamlined pragmatic clinical trials. The central tenets of Good Clinical Practice and pragmatic clinical trials represent potential tensions in trial design (stringent quality and highly efficient operations). In the present article, we highlight potential areas of discordance between Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the principles of pragmatic clinical trials and suggest strategies to streamline study conduct in an ethical manner to optimally perform clinical trials in the electronic age.

Effect of alirocumab, a monoclonal antibody to PCSK9, on long-term cardiovascular outcomes following acute coronary syndromes: rationale and design of the ODYSSEY outcomes trial.

BACKGROUND: Following acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the risk for future cardiovascular events is high and is related to levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) even within the setting of intensive statin treatment. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) regulates LDL receptor expression and circulating levels of LDL-C. Antibodies to PCSK9 can produce substantial and sustained reductions of LDL-C. The ODYSSEY Outcomes trial tests the hypothesis that treatment with alirocumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody to PCSK9, improves cardiovascular outcomes after ACS. DESIGN: This Phase 3 study will randomize approximately 18,000 patients to receive biweekly injections of alirocumab (75-150 mg) or matching placebo beginning 1 to 12 months after an index hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina. Qualifying patients are treated with atorvastatin 40 or 80 mg daily, rosuvastatin 20 or 40 mg daily, or the maximum tolerated and approved dose of one of these agents and fulfill one of the following criteria: LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥ 100 mg/dL, or apolipoprotein B ≥ 80 mg/dL. The primary efficacy measure is time to first occurrence of coronary heart disease death, acute myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or ischemic stroke. The trial is expected to continue until 1613 primary end point events have occurred with minimum follow-up of at least 2 years, providing 90% power to detect a 15% hazard reduction. Adverse events of special interest include allergic events and injection site reactions. Interim analyses are planned when approximately 50% and 75% of the targeted number of primary end points have occurred. SUMMARY: ODYSSEY Outcomes will determine whether the addition of the PCSK9 antibody alirocumab to intensive statin therapy reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality after ACS.

Early versus delayed, provisional eptifibatide in acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors are indicated in patients with acute coronary syndromes who are undergoing an invasive procedure. The optimal timing of the initiation of such therapy is unknown. METHODS: We compared a strategy of early, routine administration of eptifibatide with delayed, provisional administration in 9492 patients who had acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation and who were assigned to an invasive strategy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either early eptifibatide (two boluses, each containing 180 microg per kilogram of body weight, administered 10 minutes apart, and a standard infusion > or = 12 hours before angiography) or a matching placebo infusion with provisional use of eptifibatide after angiography (delayed eptifibatide). The primary efficacy end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, recurrent ischemia requiring urgent revascularization, or the occurrence of a thrombotic complication during percutaneous coronary intervention that required bolus therapy opposite to the initial study-group assignment ("thrombotic bailout") at 96 hours. The key secondary end point was a composite of death or myocardial infarction within the first 30 days. Key safety end points were bleeding and the need for transfusion within the first 120 hours after randomization. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 9.3% of patients in the early-eptifibatide group and in 10.0% in the delayed-eptifibatide group (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.06; P=0.23). At 30 days, the rate of death or myocardial infarction was 11.2% in the early-eptifibatide group, as compared with 12.3% in the delayed-eptifibatide group (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.01; P=0.08). Patients in the early-eptifibatide group had significantly higher rates of bleeding and red-cell transfusion. There was no significant difference between the two groups in rates of severe bleeding or nonhemorrhagic serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who had acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation, the use of eptifibatide 12 hours or more before angiography was not superior to the provisional use of eptifibatide after angiography. The early use of eptifibatide was associated with an increased risk of non-life-threatening bleeding and need for transfusion. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00089895.)

The use of electronic health records for recruitment in clinical trials: a mixed methods analysis of the Harmony Outcomes Electronic Health Record Ancillary Study.

BACKGROUND: The electronic health record (EHR) contains a wealth of clinical data that may be used to streamline the identification of potential clinical trial participants. However, there is little empirical information on site-level facilitators of and barriers to optimal use of EHR systems with respect to trial recruitment. METHODS: We conducted qualitative focus groups and quantitative surveys as part of the EHR Ancillary Study, which is being conducted alongside the multicenter, global, Harmony Outcomes Trial comparing albiglutide to standard care for the prevention of cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes. Subject matter experts used findings from focus groups to draft a 20-question survey examining the use of the EHR for participant identification, common site recruitment strategies, and variation in perceived barriers to optimal use of the EHR. The final survey was fielded with 446 site investigators actively enrolling participants in the main trial. RESULTS: Nearly two-thirds of respondents were study coordinators (63.2%), 23.1% were principal investigators, and 13.7% held other research roles. Approximately half of the respondents reported using the EHR to find potential trial participants. Of these, 79.4% reported using EHR searches in conjunction with other recruitment methods, including reviewing of upcoming clinic schedules (75.3%) and contacting past trial participants (71.2%). Important barriers to optimal use of the EHR included the lack of availability of certain research-focused EHR modules and limitations on the ability to contact patients cared for by other providers. Of survey respondents who did not use the EHR to find potential participants, one-quarter reported that the EHR was not accessible in their country; this finding varied from 2.6% of respondents in North America to 50% of respondents in the Asia Pacific. CONCLUSIONS: While EHR screening was commonly used for recruitment in a cardiovascular outcomes trial, important technical, governance, and regulatory barriers persist. Multifaceted, scalable, and customizable strategies are needed to support the optimal use of the EHR for trial participant identification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02465515. Registered on 8 June 2015.

Assessment of North American Clinical Research Site Performance During the Start-up of Large Cardiovascular Clinical Trials.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are critical in advancing patient care, yet conducting such large-scale trials requires tremendous resources and coordination. Clinical site start-up performance metrics can provide insight into opportunities for improved trial efficiency but have not been well described. Objective: To measure the start-up time needed to reach prespecified milestones across sites in large cardiovascular RCTs in North America and to evaluate how these metrics vary by time and type of regulatory review process. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study evaluated cardiovascular RCTs conducted from July 13, 2004, to February 1, 2017. The RCTs were coordinated by a single academic research organization, the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Nine consecutive trials with completed enrollment and publication of results in their target journal were studied. Data were analyzed from December 4, 2019, to January 11, 2021. Exposures: Year of trial enrollment initiation (2004-2007 vs 2008-2012) and use of a central vs local institutional review board (IRB). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the median start-up time (from study protocol delivery to first participant enrollment) as compared by trial year and type of IRB used. The median start-up time for the top 10% of sites was also reported. Secondary outcomes included time to site regulatory approval, time to contract execution, and time to site activation. Results: For the 9 RCTs included, the median site start-up time shortened only slightly over time from 267 days (interquartile range [IQR], 185-358 days) for 2004-2007 trials to 237 days (IQR, 162-343 days) for 2008-2012 trials (overall median, 255 days [IQR, 177-350 days]; P < .001). For the top 10% of sites, median start-up time was 107 days (IQR, 95-121 days) for 2004-2007 trials vs 104 days (IQR, 84-118 days) for 2008-2012 trials (overall median, 106 days [IQR, 90-120 days]; P = .04). The median start-up time was shorter among sites using a central IRB (199 days [IQR, 140-292 days]) than those using a local IRB (287 days [IQR, 205-390 days]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of North American research sites in large cardiovascular RCTs found a duration of nearly 9 months from the time of study protocol delivery to the first participant enrollment; this metric was only slightly shortened during the study period but was reduced to less than 4 months for top-performing sites. These findings suggest that the use of central IRBs has the potential to improve RCT efficiency.

Rationale and Design of the Aspirin Dosing-A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE) Trial.

Importance: Determining the right dosage of aspirin for the secondary prevention treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains an unanswered and critical question. Objective: To report the rationale and design for a randomized clinical trial to determine the optimal dosage of aspirin to be used for secondary prevention of ASCVD, using an innovative research method. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic, open-label, patient-centered, randomized clinical trial is being conducted in 15 000 patients within the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet), a distributed research network of partners including clinical research networks, health plan research networks, and patient-powered research networks across the United States. Patients with established ASCVD treated in routine clinical practice within the network are eligible. Patient recruitment began in April 2016. Enrollment was completed in June 2019. Final follow-up is expected to be completed by June 2020. Interventions: Participants are randomized on a web platform in a 1:1 fashion to either 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin daily. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end point is the composite of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for a nonfatal stroke. The primary safety end point is hospitalization for major bleeding associated with a blood-product transfusion. End points are captured through regular queries of the health systems' common data model within the structure of PCORnet's distributed data environment. Conclusions and Relevance: As a pragmatic study and the first interventional trial conducted within the PCORnet electronic data infrastructure, this trial is testing several unique and innovative operational approaches that have the potential to disrupt and transform the conduct of future patient-centered randomized clinical trials by evaluating treatments integrated in clinical practice while at the same time determining the optimal dosage of aspirin for secondary prevention of ASCVD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697916.

Facilitating translational team science: The project leader model.

Project management expertise is employed across many professional sectors, including clinical research organizations, to ensure that efforts undertaken by the organization are completed on time and according to specifications and are capable of achieving the needed impact. Increasingly, project leaders (PLs) who possess this expertise are being employed in academic settings to support clinical and preclinical translational research team science. Duke University's clinical and translational science enterprise has been an early adopter of project management to support clinical and preclinical programs. We review the history and evolution of project management and the PL role at Duke, examine case studies that illustrate their growing value to our academic research environment, and address challenges and solutions to employing project management in academia. Furthermore, we describe the critical role project leadership plays in accelerating and increasing the success of translational team science and team approaches frequently required for systems biology and "big data" scientific studies. Finally, we discuss perspectives from Duke project leadership professionals regarding the training needs and requirements for PLs working in academic clinical and translational science research settings.

Time to coronary angiography and outcomes among patients with high-risk non ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: results from the SYNERGY trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal timing for an early invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome remains unclear. We evaluated the relationship between time from hospital admission to coronary angiography and outcomes in high-risk patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome who underwent angiography within 48 hours of admission. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 10 027 patients enrolled in the Superior Yield of the New Strategy of Enoxaparin, Revascularization, and Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors (SYNERGY) trial were analyzed. Patients were grouped by 6-hour intervals of time from hospital admission to coronary angiography. Primary outcomes were 30-day death or myocardial infarction, in-hospital Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) and Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) major bleeding, and blood transfusion. Adjusted estimates of event rates were obtained by use of a multivariable methodology that included possible confounders through baseline and accounted for propensity of time to angiography. The landmark method was used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of outcomes for each time period adjusted for baseline and postbaseline clinical events. Overall, 9216 patients (92%) underwent angiography, 6352 (63%) within 48 hours. Unadjusted and adjusted rates of death/myocardial infarction increased with increasing time to angiography. The adjusted odds ratio for death/myocardial infarction in patients receiving angiography in <6 hours was 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.41 to 0.74), whereas after 30 hours, there was no significant benefit compared with further delayed angiography. Major bleeding and transfusion did not vary significantly across time-to-angiography intervals. CONCLUSIONS: A decrease in the time to coronary angiography was associated with fewer ischemic outcomes and no increase in bleeding. Randomized clinical trials are needed to provide definitive evidence on optimal timing of coronary angiography but are difficult to design and conduct. Ongoing trials should instead clarify whether delaying angiography to administer aggressive upstream antithrombotic therapies is effective in the current setting of non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome management.

Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin in high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the Superior Yield of the New Strategy of Enoxaparin, Revascularization and Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors (SYNERGY) trial.

BACKGROUND: Enoxaparin reduces ischemic events more effectively than unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients treated conservatively for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. The SYNERGY trial compared these agents in high-risk patients undergoing early invasive treatment. Enoxaparin was noninferior to UFH for the 30-day primary end point of death/myocardial infarction (MI), but modestly increased bleeding. METHODS AND RESULTS: This article compares the outcomes of the 4687 SYNERGY patients (47%) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, who were randomized to receive enoxaparin or UFH. Antithrombotic therapy was administered prerandomization in 78%. Crossover (usually in the catheterization laboratory) to the alternative antithrombotic occurred in 14.6% of enoxaparin patients and 2.9% of UFH-treated patients (P < .0001). Stenting was performed in 86.3%. Abrupt vessel closure occurred in 1.3% of enoxaparin patients and 1.7% of UFH-treated patients (P = .318). The rates of death/MI were similar at 30 days (13.1% with enoxaparin vs 14.2% with UFH, P = .289). GUSTO severe bleeding occurred with similar frequency in both groups (1.5% vs 1.6%, P = .688). TIMI major bleeding was more common with enoxaparin (3.7% vs 2.5% with UFH, P = .028). Transfusions were more frequent with enoxaparin than with UFH (6.8% vs 5.4%, P = .047). TIMI major bleeding increased with crossover from enoxaparin to UFH (from 3.7% to 7.8%) and from UFH to enoxaparin (from 2.5% to 8.6%). Statistical adjustment to model reasons for crossover did not affect the overall safety and efficacy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients undergoing early percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome, enoxaparin avoids the need for monitoring and achieves similar effectiveness to UFH but is associated with more bleeding.

Is glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonism as effective in women as in men following percutaneous coronary intervention?. Lessons from the ESPRIT study.

OBJECTIVE: The study was done to determine whether eptifibatide, a platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa antagonist, prevents ischemic complications following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in women as well as in men. BACKGROUND: Eptifibatide reduces ischemic complications after nonurgent coronary stent interventions. METHODS: We compared outcomes in women (n = 562) and men (n = 1,502) enrolled in the Enhanced Suppression of the Platelet GP IIb/IIIa Receptor with Integrilin Therapy (ESPRIT) trial of double-bolus eptifibatide during PCI. RESULTS: Women in the ESPRIT trial were older, and more frequently had hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or acute coronary syndromes, but were less likely to have prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The primary end point, a composite at 48 h of death, myocardial infarction (MI), urgent target vessel revascularization (TVR), and unplanned GP IIb/IIIa use, occurred in 10.5% of women and 7.9% of men (p = 0.082). The composite of death, MI, or TVR after one year occurred in 24.5% of women compared with 18% of men (p = 0.0008). At 48 h, eptifibatide reduced the composite of death, MI, and TVR from 14.5% to 6.0% in women versus 9.0% to 6.8% in men. At one year, these differences persisted: 28.9% versus 20.0% for women and 19.5% versus 16.6% for men. No statistical interaction existed between treatment and gender at either 48 h (p = 0.063) or one year (p = 0.2). Bleeding occurred more commonly in women (5.5% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.002), and was more common in eptifibatide-treated women. After adjustment for age, weight, and hypertension, no interaction between treatment and gender was present. CONCLUSION: Eptifibatide is effective to prevent ischemic complications of PCI in women and may eliminate gender-related differences in PCI outcomes.

Characterization of myocardial infarction as an end point in two large trials of acute coronary syndromes.

Myocardial infarction (MI) is a key component of composite end points in trials that evaluate new therapies in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Types of MI events in these trials have not been well characterized. A similar clinical-events classification process adjudicated all suspected MI end points in the PURSUIT and PARAGON B trials. All MI end points were classified as nonprocedural, related to percutaneous coronary intervention, or related to coronary artery bypass grafting. A total of 16,173 patients was enrolled in the 2 trials, and 1,802 MI end points occurred during a 30-day follow-up. Nearly 66% of MI end points were not related to percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting. Patients who had MI compared with those who did not had higher 30-day mortality rates (13.6% vs 2.3%, p <0.001) and 6-month mortality rates (18.4% vs 4.4%, p <0.001). Patients who had been randomized to glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition showed trends toward fewer MI events regardless of type. Two-thirds of MI end points in 2 large trials of acute coronary syndrome were not related to procedure. All MI types were associated with worse short- and long-term outcomes. Characterization of the type of MI provides an opportunity for more informed interpretation of clinical trial results and improved planning for future trials.

High-risk patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin: outcomes at 6 months and 1 year in the SYNERGY trial.

CONTEXT: The SYNERGY trial comparing enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin in high-risk patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) showed that enoxaparin was not inferior to unfractionated heparin in reducing death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) at 30 days. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate continued risk in this patient cohort through 6-month and 1-year follow-up. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Overall, 9978 patients were randomized from August 2001 through December 2003 in 487 hospitals in 12 countries. Patients were followed up for 6 months and for 1 year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Six-month outcomes were death, nonfatal MI, revascularization procedures, stroke, and site-investigator-reported need for rehospitalization; 1-year outcome was all-cause death. RESULTS: Six-month and 1-year follow-up data were available for 9957 (99.8%) and 9608 (96.3%) of 9978 patients, respectively; 541 patients (5.4%) had died at 6 months and 739 (7.4%) at 1 year. Death or nonfatal MI at 6 months occurred in 872 patients receiving enoxaparin (17.6%) vs 884 receiving unfractionated heparin (17.8%) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-1.07; P = .65). In the subgroup of patients receiving consistent therapy, ie, only enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin during the index hospitalization (n = 6138), a reduction in death or nonfatal MI with enoxaparin was maintained at 180 days (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95; P = .006). Rehospitalization within 180 days occurred in 858 patients receiving enoxaparin (17.9%) and 911 receiving unfractionated heparin (19.0%) (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03; P = .17). One-year all-cause death rates were similar in the 2 treatment groups (380/4974 [7.6%] for enoxaparin vs 359/4948 [7.3%] for unfractionated heparin; HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.92-1.22; P = .44). One-year death rates in patients receiving consistent therapy were also similar (251/3386 [7.4%] for enoxaparin vs 213/2720 [7.8%] for unfractionated heparin; HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79-1.14; P = .55). CONCLUSIONS: In the SYNERGY trial, patients continued to experience adverse cardiac events through long-term follow-up. The effect of enoxaparin on death or MI compared with that of unfractionated heparin at 6 months was similar to that observed at 30 days in the overall trial and in the consistent-therapy group. One-year death rates were also similar in both groups. High-risk patients with ACS remain susceptible to continued cardiac events despite aggressive therapies.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00043784.

Misreporting of myocardial infarction end points: results of adjudication by a central clinical events committee in the PARAGON-B trial. Second Platelet IIb/IIIa Antagonist for the Reduction of Acute Coronary Syndrome Events in a Global Organization Network Trial.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial (re)infarction (MI), a common trial end point, can be difficult to identify because of inconclusive signs and symptoms. We examined disagreement between investigator and clinical events committee (CEC) reporting of MIs in an international, randomized trial. METHODS: The primary end point of the PARAGON-B trial was a 30-day composite of death, MI (CEC adjudicated), or ischemia-driven intervention. If CEC and investigator determinations of MI differed, we sent investigators event summaries and rationales for CEC decisions and asked whether they now agreed with the CEC assessment. If they still disagreed, they were to provide a rationale and supporting data. Such cases were reviewed, and a final decision was made. RESULTS: Overall, 1736 of 5225 (33%) patients had suspected MIs; the CEC adjudicated 483 of 1736 (28%) as MIs. In 404 patients (23%), investigator and CEC assessments of MI differed; 270 MIs were identified by the CEC but not investigators, and 134 were identified by investigators but not the CEC. Most disagreements concerned periprocedural MIs, but some reflected clinical ischemia and enzyme elevations. Letters for 382 disagreements were sent and returned by investigators, and investigators came to agree with CEC assessments in 307 cases (80%). For the other 75 cases (20%), after review the investigators' assessments were confirmed in 10 cases, and the original CEC decisions were supported in the other 65 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Investigators misreport MI end points, but most later agree with CEC assessments. These data support standard, independent adjudication of suspected MIs for accurate reporting, which may affect evaluations of therapies, sample-size calculations, and event-rate comparisons across trials.

Systematic adjudication of myocardial infarction end-points in an international clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical events committees (CEC) are used routinely to adjudicate suspected end-points in cardiovascular trials, but little information has been published about the various processes used. We reviewed results of the CEC process used to identify and adjudicate suspected end-point (post-enrolment) myocardial infarction (MI) in the large Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin (Eptifibatide) Therapy (PURSUIT) trial. METHODS: The PURSUIT trial randomised 10,948 patients with acute coronary syndromes to receive eptifibatide or placebo. A central adjudication process was established prospectively to identify all suspected MIs and adjudicate events based on protocol definitions of MI. Suspected MIs were identified by systematic review of data collection forms, cardiac enzyme results, and electrocardiograms. Two physicians independently reviewed all suspected events. If they disagreed whether a MI had occurred, a committee of cardiologists adjudicated the case. RESULTS: The CEC identified 5005 patients with suspected infarction (46%), of which 1415 (28%) were adjudicated as end-point infarctions. As expected, the process identified more end-point events than did the site investigators. Absolute and relative treatment effects of eptifibatide were smaller when using CEC-determined MI rates rather than site investigator-determined rates. The site-investigator reporting of MI and the CEC assessment of MI disagreed in 20% of the cases reviewed by the CEC. CONCLUSIONS: End-point adjudication by a CEC is important, to provide standardised, systematic, independent, and unbiased assessment of end-points, particularly in trials that span geographic regions and clinical practice settings. Understanding the CEC process used is important in the interpretation of trial results and event rates.

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

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.

A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled phase 2 trial to evaluate a novel selective and reversible intravenous and oral P2Y12 inhibitor elinogrel versus clopidogrel in patients undergoing nonurgent percutaneous coronary intervention: the INNOVATE-PCI trial.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of elinogrel, a competitive, reversible intravenous and oral P2Y(12) inhibitor that does not require metabolic activation, in patients undergoing nonurgent percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging phase 2b trial, 652 patients received either 300 or 600 mg of clopidogrel pre-percutaneous coronary intervention followed by 75 mg daily or 80 or 120 mg of IV elinogrel followed by 50, 100, or 150 mg oral elinogrel twice daily. Numerous exploratory safety and efficacy end points were assessed and, as such, had no prespecified primary end point, and the study was not powered to conclusively evaluate its objectives. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction combined bleeding was increased with elinogrel (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 3.57), related largely to increased bleeding requiring medical attention (elinogrel 47/408 [11.5%] versus clopidogrel 13/208 [6.3%]) and occurring primarily at the percutaneous coronary intervention access site. Efficacy end points and postprocedure cardiac enzyme were similar, but there was a nonsignificant higher frequency of periprocedural myocardial infarctions in the elinogrel arms (OR, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 3.48). There was an increased incidence of dyspnea (elinogrel 50/408 [12.3%] versus clopidogrel 8/208 [3.8%]) and transaminase elevation (alanine transferase/aspartate transferase >3× the upper limit of normal; elinogrel 18/408 [4.4%] versus clopidogrel 2/208 [1.0%]) in the elinogrel arms, but there were no cases of heart block, bradycardia, hypotension, or liver failure. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing nonurgent percutaneous coronary intervention and in comparison with clopidogrel, intravenous and oral elinogrel therapy did not significantly increase thrombolysis in myocardial infarction major or minor bleeding, although bleeding requiring medical attention was more common. The significance of these findings will need to be more definitively determined in future Phase 3 studies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00751231.

Strategic lessons from the clinical event classification process for the Assessment of Pexelizumab in Acute Myocardial Infarction (APEX-AMI) trial.

BACKGROUND: Independent adjudication of clinical trial events is traditionally performed by physicians on a clinical event classification (CEC) committee. OBJECTIVES: The experience of the centralized CEC group of the APEX-AMI trial is described. This group adjudicated key secondary pre-specified outcome measures of congestive heart failure (CHF) and cardiogenic shock through 90 days using an algorithmic approach for some events. METHODS: Data were collected via an electronic data capture (EDC) tool on all subjects, and additional information was provided via EDC for patients identified by site investigators with CHF or shock. Two strategies were used to adjudicate potential events: 1) a computer algorithm (followed by physician confirmation) analyzed data to determine whether events met trial end point definitions; or 2) physician review was used if EDC data were inadequate to allow classification by algorithm. RESULTS: Of 5745 patients, 282 suspected cardiogenic shock and 465 suspected CHF events were identified. The computer algorithm or physicians confirmed 196/282 cardiogenic shock and 277/465 CHF end points. Overall, 242/742 (32.6%) of suspected events were classified by algorithm. Of the 500 events not resolved by computer algorithm, the CEC physicians agreed with site investigator assessments in 126/277 (45%) of CHF and 151/196 (77%) of cardiogenic shock events. The CEC committee completed adjudication of all suspected 30- and 90-day CHF and cardiogenic shock events within 7 days of the last patient 30-day follow-up visit and within 1 day of the last patient 90-day follow-up visit. Only 27% of patients required source document collection in addition to EDC-collected information. CONCLUSIONS: A complementary approach of a computerized assessment and physician review was used in the CEC effort of the APEX-AMI trial. The algorithm categorized approximately one third of suspected CHF/cardiogenic shock events. The APEX-AMI CEC experience shows that an algorithmic approach may be a useful strategy for end point evaluation but requires validation.

Comparison of site-reported and core laboratory-reported creatine kinase-MB values in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (from the international trial SYNERGY).

The effect of nonstandardized creatine kinase (CK)-MB assays on the assessment of myocardial infarction (MI) end points in multicenter international trials has not been evaluated. We compared the site-reported and corresponding core laboratory CK-MB measures from 5 countries participating in the Superior Yield of the New Strategy of Enoxaparin, Revascularization, and Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors (SYNERGY) trial. Samples for CK-MB were collected locally, with corresponding samples sent to a core laboratory at enrollment and after recurrent ischemic events, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass grafting. The measured values were compared to the reported assay upper limits of normal (ULN) used at the site (or core laboratory for the core laboratory samples). The CK-MB results were available locally and from the core laboratory for 913 patients, constituting 4,693 time-matched laboratory values. The agreement between the core and site laboratory CK-MB/ULN ratio was moderate (concordance correlation coefficient 0.45) and varied considerably by geographic location and site. The CK-MB values were elevated (>or=2 times the ULN) by the core laboratory but normal (<2 times the ULN) by local standards in 708 instances (15%). There were 162 MI end points according to the core laboratory values versus 91 MI end points using the site-reported CK-MB data (kappa statistic 0.48). Compared with patients with no MI by the core or site laboratory values, patients with MI, as determined by both the core and the site laboratories, had significantly lower unadjusted 1-year survival rates (80.6% vs 93.5%, p <0.0001). Patients with MI, as determined by the core laboratory but not by the site laboratory, showed a trend toward a lower 1-year survival rate (89.8% vs 93.5%, p = 0.20). In conclusion, a substantial variation in CK-MB ratios and MI outcomes between the site and core laboratory data was observed in the SYNERGY trial. More MI outcomes were identified by the core laboratory, and patients with MI as defined by core laboratory data had lower 1-year survival, making these events potentially clinically important.