A screening method to spot biomarkers that may warn of serious events in a chronic disease - illustrated by cardiological CLARICOR trial data.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a crude screening method for detecting biomarkers which frequently exhibit a rise (or fall) in level prior to a serious event (e.g. a stroke) in patients with a chronic disease, signalling that the biomarker may have an alarm-raising or prognostic potential. The subsequent assessment of the marker's clinical utility requires costly, difficult longitudinal studies. Therefore, initial screening of candidate-biomarkers is desirable. METHODS: The method exploits a cohort of patients with biomarkers measured at entry and with recording of first serious event during follow-up. Copying those individual records onto a common timeline where a specific event occurs on the same day (Day 0) for all patients, the baseline biomarker level, when plotted against the patient's entry time on the revised timeline, will have a positive (negative) regression slope if biomarker levels generally rise (decline) the closer one gets to the event. As an example, we study 1,958 placebo-treated patients with stable coronary artery disease followed for nine years in the CLARICOR trial (NCT00121550), examining 11 newer biomarkers. RESULTS: Rising average serum levels of cardiac troponin T and of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide were seen prior to a fatal cardiovascular outcome. C-reactive protein rose prior to non-cardiovascular death. Glomerular filtration rate, seven lipoproteins, and nine newer cardiological biomarkers did not show convincing changes. CONCLUSIONS: For early detection of biomarkers with an alarm-raising potential in chronic diseases, we proposed the described easy procedure. Using only baseline biomarker values and clinical course of participants with coronary heart disease, we identified the same cardiovascular biomarkers as those previously found containing prognostic information using longitudinal or survival analysis.

Trajectories in severe persistent pain after groin hernia repair: a retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Severe persistent post-surgical pain (PPSP) remains a significant healthcare problem. In the third most common surgical procedure in the U.K., groin hernia repair, including 85,000 surgeries, estimated 1,500-3,000 patients will annually develop severe PPSP. While the trajectory of PPSP is generally considered a continuation of the acute post-surgery pain, recent data suggest the condition may develop with a delayed onset. This study evaluated pain-trajectories in a consecutive cohort referred from groin hernia repair-surgeons to a tertiary PPSP-center. Potential explanatory variables based on individual psychometric, sensory, and surgical profiles were analyzed. METHODS: Patients completed graphs on pain trajectories and questionnaires on neuropathic pain, pain-related functional assessments, and psychometrics. Surgical records and quantitative sensory testing profiles were obtained. Pain trajectories were normalized, and pre- and post-surgical segments were analyzed by a normalized area-under-the-curve (AUC) technique. Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to the explanatory variables. Significant PCA-components were further examined using multiple logistic regression models. RESULTS: In 95 patients, the AUC identified groups of post-surgical pain trajectories (p<0.0001): group I (n=48), acute high-intensity pain progressing to PPSP; group II (n=28), delayed onset of PPSP; group III (n=7), repeat-surgery gradually inducing PPSP. Data from groups IV (n=3) and V (n=9) were not included in the statistical analysis due to small sample size and data heterogeneity, respectively. The PCA/logistic analyses indicated that neuropathic pain scores, composite pain scores, and pain-related functional assessments were explanatory variables for groups I and II. CONCLUSIONS: Pain trajectories in PPSP after groin hernia repair are heterogeneous but can be classified into meaningful groups. Examination of pain trajectories, mirroring the transition from acute to severe persistent post-surgical pain, has the potential of uncovering clinically relevant pathophysiological mechanisms.

Prognostic value of 12 novel cardiological biomarkers in stable coronary artery disease. A 10-year follow-up of the placebo group of the Copenhagen CLARICOR trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess if 12 novel circulating biomarkers, when added to 'standard predictors' available in general practice, could improve the 10-year prediction of cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with stable coronary heart disease. DESIGN: The patients participated as placebo receiving patients in the randomised clarithromycin for patients with stable coronary artery disease (CLARICOR) trial at a random time in their disease trajectory. SETTING: Five Copenhagen University cardiology departments and a coordinating centre. PARTICIPANTS: 1998 participants with stable coronary artery disease. OUTCOMES: Death and composite of myocardial infarction, unstable angina pectoris, cerebrovascular disease and death. RESULTS: When only 'standard predictors' were included, 83.4% of all-cause death predictions and 68.4% of composite outcome predictions were correct. Log(calprotectin) and log(cathepsin-S) were not associated (p≥0.01) with the outcomes, not even as single predictors. Adding the remaining 10 biomarkers (high-sensitive assay cardiac troponin T; neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin; osteoprotegerin; N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; tumour necrosis factor receptor 1 and 2; pregnancy-associated plasma protein A; endostatin; YKL40; cathepsin-B), which were all individually significantly associated with the prediction of the two outcomes, increased the figures to 84.7% and 69.7%. CONCLUSION: When 'standard predictors' routinely available in general practices are used for risk assessment in consecutively sampled patients with stable coronary artery disease, the addition of 10 novel biomarkers to the prediction model improved the correct prediction of all-cause death and the composite outcome by <1.5%. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00121550.

Serum osteoprotegerin as a long-term predictor for patients with stable coronary artery disease and its association with diabetes and statin treatment: A CLARICOR trial 10-year follow-up substudy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Elevated circulating levels of osteoprotegerin (OPG) are known to add to the prediction of cardiovascular mortality. Our objective was to clarify the long-term risk associated with serum OPG and the possible influence of diabetes and statins on OPG levels in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: We assessed the placebo-treated group (n = 1998) from the CLARICOR trial (NCT00121550), a cohort with stable CAD. At entry, 15% of the participants had diabetes and 41% received statins. Serum OPG levels were measured in blood drawn at randomization. Participants were followed through public registers for 10 years. RESULTS: OPG levels correlated positively with diabetes status, age, CRP and female sex, but negatively with the use of statins. CAD participants with diabetes had significantly elevated serum OPG levels compared to participants without diabetes, p < 0.0001. The participants without diabetes treated with statins presented with significantly lower serum OPG levels than the corresponding non-statin-users (p < 0.0001). However, statin use showed no association with OPG levels in the participants with diabetes. High OPG levels at entry showed long-term associations with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events (hazard ratio associated with factor 10 OPG increase 15.9 (95% CI 11.0-22.9) and 6.38 (4.60-8.90), p = 0.0001, even after adjustment for standard predictors (3.16 (1.90-5.25) and 2.29 (1.53-3.44), p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Circulating OPG holds long-term independent predictive ability for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in CAD participants. OPG levels were associated with diabetes, age, and female sex and statin treatment was associated with lower OPG levels in the absence of diabetes.

Prognosis and Reclassification by YKL-40 in Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

Background The inflammatory biomarker YKL-40 has previously been studied as a potential risk marker in cardiovascular disease. We aimed to assess the prognostic reclassification potential of serum YKL-40 in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Methods and Results The main study population was the placebo group of the CLARICOR (Effect of Clarithromycin on Mortality and Morbidity in Patients With Ischemic Heart Disease) trial. The primary outcome was a composite of acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina pectoris, cerebrovascular disease, and all-cause mortality. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for C-reactive protein level and baseline cardiovascular risk factors. Improvement in prediction by adding serum YKL-40 to the risk factors was calculated using the Cox-Breslow method and c-statistic. A total of 2200 patients were randomized to placebo, with a follow-up duration of 10 years. YKL-40 was associated with an increased risk of the composite outcome (hazard ratio per unit increase in (YKL-40) 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.24, P=0.013) and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% CI 1.17-1.49, P<0.0001). Considering whether a composite-outcome event was more likely to have, or not have, occurred to date, we found 68.4% of such predictions to be correct when based on the standard predictors, and 68.5% when serum YKL-40 was added as a predictor. Equivalent results were obtained with c-statistics. Conclusions Higher serum YKL-40 was independently associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes and mortality. Addition of YKL-40 did not improve risk prediction in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT00121550.

Power estimations for non-primary outcomes in randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: It is rare that trialists report power estimations of non-primary outcomes. In the present article, we will describe how to define a valid hierarchy of outcomes in a randomised clinical trial, to limit problems with Type I and Type II errors, using considerations on the clinical relevance of the outcomes and power estimations. CONCLUSION: Power estimations of non-primary outcomes may guide trialists in classifying non-primary outcomes as secondary or exploratory. The power estimations are simple and if they are used systematically, more appropriate outcome hierarchies can be defined, and trial results will become more interpretable.

Circulating endostatin as a risk factor for cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary heart disease: A CLARICOR trial sub-study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Raised levels of serum endostatin, a biologically active fragment of collagen XVIII, have been observed in patients with ischemic heart disease but association with incident cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary heart disease is uncertain. METHODS: The CLARICOR-trial is a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of stable coronary heart disease patients evaluating 14-day treatment with clarithromycin. The primary outcome was a composite of acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina pectoris, cerebrovascular disease or all-cause mortality. In the present sub-study using 10-year follow-up data, we investigated associations between serum endostatin at entry (randomization) and the composite outcome and its components during follow-up. The placebo group was used as discovery sample (1204 events, n = 1998) and the clarithromycin-treated group as replication sample (1220 events, n = 1979). RESULTS: In Cox regression models adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors, glomerular filtration rate, and current pharmacological treatment, higher serum endostatin was associated with an increased risk of the composite outcome in the discovery sample (hazard ratio per standard deviation increase 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.19, p = 0.004), but slightly weaker and not statistically significant in the replication sample (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% CI 1.00-1.14, p = 0.06). In contrast, strong and consistent associations were found between endostatin and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in all multivariable models and sub-samples. Addition of endostatin to a model with established cardiovascular risk factors provided no substantial improvement of risk prediction (<1%). CONCLUSIONS: Raised levels of serum endostatin might be associated with cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary heart disease. The clinical utility of endostatin measurements remains to be established.

Cathepsin B and S as markers for cardiovascular risk and all-cause mortality in patients with stable coronary heart disease during 10 years: a CLARICOR trial sub-study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The lysosomal cysteine proteases cathepsin B and S have been implicated in the atherosclerotic process. The present paper investigates the association between serum levels of cathepsin B and S and cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with stable coronary heart disease. METHODS: The CLARICOR trial is a randomised, placebo-controlled trial investigating the effect of clarithromycin versus placebo in patients with stable coronary heart disease. The outcome was time to either a cardiovascular event or all-cause mortality. The placebo group was used as discovery sample and the clarithromycin group as replication sample: n = 1998, n = 1979; mean age (years) 65, 65; 31%, 30% women; follow-up for 10 years; number of composite outcomes n = 1204, n = 1220; respectively. We used a pre-defined multivariable Cox regression model adjusting for inflammation, established cardiovascular risk factors, kidney function, and use of cardiovascular drugs. RESULTS: Cathepsin B was associated with an increased risk of the composite outcome in both samples after multivariable adjustment (discovery: multivariable ratio (HR) per standard deviation increase 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.19, p < 0.001, replication; HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07-1.21, p < 0.001). There was no significant association between cathepsin S and the composite outcome in either the discovery or replication sample after multivariable adjustment (p>0.45). Secondary analyses suggest that cathepsin B was predominantly associated with mortality rather than specific cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: Cathepsin B, but not serum cathepsin S, was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary heart disease. The clinical implications of our findings remain to be established.

Prognostic value of routinely available data in patients with stable coronary heart disease. A 10-year follow-up of patients sampled at random times during their disease course.

Objective: To characterise the long-term prognosis of patients with stable coronary artery heart disease by means of 'standard predictors' defined as demographic, clinical and biochemical quantities routinely available in general practices and ascertained at an interview not prompted by renewed cardiac complaints. Methods: This is an observational study based on data from 2199 Copenhagen placebo patients from the 'clarithromycin for patients with stable coronary heart disease' trial of patients with stable coronary heart disease. In the trial, we compared the effects of 14 days of clarithromycin treatment versus placebo. The predictors were based on the interview forms and blood samples collected at entry, along with demographic information from hospital files.We studied 'standard predictors' of a composite outcome (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, cerebrovascular disease or all-cause death) and of all-cause death. Using Cox regression, we compared predictions of status at 3, 6 and 9 years without and with the use of 'standard predictors' and used receiver operating characteristic statistic. Results: Few 'standard predictors' were associated (p<0.01) with the composite outcome or with all-cause death. When no 'standard predictors' were included, 63.2% of the model-based predictions of the composite outcome and 79.9% of death predictions were correct. Including all 'standard predictors' in the model increased the figures to 68.4% and 83.4%, respectively. C indices were low, except when all-cause death was assessed as a single outcome where C was 0.79. Conclusion: 'Standard predictors' routinely available in general practices contribute only modestly to risk assessment in consecutively sampled patients with stable coronary heart disease as ascertained at a contact not prompted by renewed cardiac complaints. Novel biomarkers may improve the assessment. Trial registration number: NCT00121550.

Minimum clinically important differences in chronic pain vary considerably by baseline pain and methodological factors: systematic review of empirical studies.

BACKGROUND: The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is used to interpret the relevance of treatment effects, e.g., when developing clinical guidelines, evaluating trial results or planning sample sizes. There is currently no agreement on an appropriate MCID in chronic pain and little is known about which contextual factors cause variation. METHODS: This is a systematic review. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Eligible studies determined MCID for chronic pain based on a one-dimensional pain scale, a patient-reported transition scale of perceived improvement, and either a mean change analysis (mean difference in pain among minimally improved patients) or a threshold analysis (pain reduction associated with best sensitivity and specificity for identifying minimally improved patients). Main results were descriptively summarized due to considerable heterogeneity, which were quantified using meta-analyses and explored using subgroup analyses and metaregression. RESULTS: We included 66 studies (31.254 patients). Median absolute MCID was 23 mm on a 0-100 mm scale (interquartile range [IQR] 12-39) and median relative MCID was 34% (IQR 22-45) among studies using the mean change approach. In both cases, heterogeneity was very high: absolute MCID I2 = 99% and relative MCID I2 = 96%. High variation was also seen among studies using the threshold approach: median absolute MCID was 20 mm (IQR 15-30) and relative MCID was 32% (IQR 15-41). Absolute MCID was strongly associated with baseline pain, explaining approximately two-thirds of the variation, and to a lesser degree with the operational definition of minimum pain relief and clinical condition. A total of 15 clinical and methodological factors were assessed as possible causes for variation in MCID. CONCLUSIONS: MCID for chronic pain relief vary considerably. Baseline pain is strongly associated with absolute, but not relative, measures. To a much lesser degree, MCID is also influenced by the operational definition of relevant pain relief and possibly by clinical condition. Explicit and conscientious reflections on the choice of an MCID are required when classifying effect sizes as clinically important or trivial.

10-Year Associations Between Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptors 1 and 2 and Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Stable Coronary Heart Disease: A CLARICOR (Effect of Clarithromycin on Mortality and Morbidity in Patients With Ischemic Heart Disease) Trial Substudy.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the associations and predictive powers between the soluble receptors for tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α (TNFR1 and TNFR2) and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable coronary heart disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: CLARICOR (Effect of Clarithromycin on Mortality and Morbidity in Patients With Ischemic Heart Disease) is a randomized clinical trial comparing clarithromycin with placebo in patients with stable coronary heart disease. The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina pectoris, cerebrovascular disease, and all-cause mortality. Patients were followed up for 10 years; discovery sample, those assigned placebo (1204 events in n=1998); and replication sample, those assigned clarithromycin (1220 events in n=1979). We used Cox regression adjusted for C-reactive protein level, established cardiovascular risk factors, kidney function, and cardiovascular drugs. After adjustments, higher serum levels of TNFR1 and TNFR2 were associated with the composite outcome in the discovery sample (hazard ratio per SD increase, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.22; P=0.001 for TNFR1; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.24; P<0.001 for TNFR2). The associations were similar in the replication sample. The associations with the composite outcome were mainly driven by acute myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality, and noncardiovascular mortality. The addition of TNFR1 and TNFR2 to established cardiovascular risk factors improved prediction only modestly (<1%). CONCLUSIONS: Increased concentrations of circulating TNFR1 and TNFR2 were associated with increased risks of cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with stable coronary heart disease. Yet, the utility of measuring TNFR1 and TNFR2 to improve risk prediction in these patients appears limited. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00121550.

Pain relief that matters to patients: systematic review of empirical studies assessing the minimum clinically important difference in acute pain.

BACKGROUND: The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is used to interpret the clinical relevance of results reported by trials and meta-analyses as well as to plan sample sizes in new studies. However, there is a lack of consensus about the size of MCID in acute pain, which is a core symptom affecting patients across many clinical conditions. METHODS: We identified and systematically reviewed empirical studies of MCID in acute pain. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, and included prospective studies determining MCID using a patient-reported anchor and a one-dimensional pain scale (e.g. 100 mm visual analogue scale). We summarised results and explored reasons for heterogeneity applying meta-regression, subgroup analyses and individual patient data meta-analyses. RESULTS: We included 37 studies (8479 patients). Thirty-five studies used a mean change approach, i.e. MCID was assessed as the mean difference in pain score among patients who reported a minimum degree of improvement, while seven studies used a threshold approach, i.e. MCID was assessed as the threshold in pain reduction associated with the best accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for identifying improved patients. Meta-analyses found considerable heterogeneity between studies (absolute MCID: I2 = 93%, relative MCID: I2 = 75%) and results were therefore presented qualitatively, while analyses focused on exploring reasons for heterogeneity. The reported absolute MCID values ranged widely from 8 to 40 mm (standardised to a 100 mm scale) and the relative MCID values from 13% to 85%. From analyses of individual patient data (seven studies, 918 patients), we found baseline pain strongly associated with absolute, but not relative, MCID as patients with higher baseline pain needed larger pain reduction to perceive relief. Subgroup analyses showed that the definition of improved patients (one or several categories improvement or meaningful change) and the design of studies (single or multiple measurements) also influenced MCID values. CONCLUSIONS: The MCID in acute pain varied greatly between studies and was influenced by baseline pain, definitions of improved patients and study design. MCID is context-specific and potentially misguiding if determined, applied or interpreted inappropriately. Explicit and conscientious reflections on the choice of a reference value are required when using MCID to classify research results as clinically important or trivial.

Predictors for major cardiovascular outcomes in stable ischaemic heart disease (PREMAC): statistical analysis plan for data originating from the CLARICOR (clarithromycin for patients with stable coronary heart disease) trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the predictors for major cardiovascular outcomes in stable ischaemic heart disease (PREMAC) study is exploratory and hypothesis generating. We want to identify biochemical quantities which-conditionally on the values of available standard demographic, anamnestic, and biochemical data-may improve the prediction of cardiovascular outcomes and/or death in patients suffering from stable ischaemic heart disease. The candidate biochemical quantities include N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, YKL-40, osteoprotegerin, high-sensitive assay cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), pregnancy-associated plasma protein-A (PAPP-A), cathepsin B, cathepsin S, soluble TNF receptor 1 and 2, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, endostatin, and calprotectin. As an extra objective, we also want to assess if skewness in these predictors may explain why the clarithromycin for patients with stable coronary heart disease (CLARICOR) trial found increased all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality on a brief clarithromycin regimen compared with placebo. METHODS: Baseline data were obtained from the hospital files at five cardiology clinics covering the Copenhagen area. The CLARICOR trial included data from 4372 stable coronary artery disease patients recruited among such patients alive and diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris during 1993 to 1999 in Copenhagen and randomised during October 1999 to April 2000 to the CLARICOR trial of 14 days clarithromycin versus placebo.Initial follow-up lasted for 2.6 years, during which outcomes were collected through hospital and death registries and assessed by an adjudication committee. Corresponding register data later showed to produce similar results. The adjudicated outcomes were therefore replaced and augmented by register data on outcomes to cover 10 years of follow-up. Biochemical marker data were obtained from analysis of serum from the CLARICOR bio-bank collected at randomisation and stored at -80° C.Using Cox proportional hazard method, we will identify among the candidate biochemical quantities those which are significant predictors when used alone and in combination with the standard predictors as defined in the present study. DISCUSSION: Patients who became stable during the period 1993 to 1999 and died before October 1999 are missing. The data from the placebo patients are nevertheless useful to identify new prognostic biomarkers in patients with stable coronary artery disease, and data from both trial groups are useful to assess important potential skewness between randomised groups. However, due to the potential selection bias, we do not feel that it is advisable to try to rank identified biochemical predictors relative to each other nor to use the results for predictive purposes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00121550 Date of registration 13 July 2005Date of enrolment of first participant 12 October 1999.

Early-Phase Studies of Biomarkers: What Target Sensitivity and Specificity Values Might Confer Clinical Utility?

BACKGROUND: Many cancer biomarker research studies seek to develop markers that can accurately detect or predict future onset of disease. To design and evaluate these studies, one must specify the levels of accuracy sought. However, justified target levels are rarely available. METHODS: We describe a way to calculate target levels of sensitivity and specificity for a biomarker intended to be applied in a defined clinical context. The calculation requires knowledge of the prevalence or incidence of cases in the clinical population and the ratio of benefit associated with the clinical consequences of a positive biomarker test in cases (true positive) to cost associated with a positive biomarker test in controls (false positive). Guidance is offered on soliciting the cost/benefit ratio. The calculations are based on the longstanding decision theory concept of providing a net benefit on average in the population, and they rely on some assumptions about uniformity of costs and benefits to those tested. RESULTS: Calculations are illustrated with 3 applications: predicting colon cancer recurrence in stage 1 patients; predicting interval breast cancer (between mammography screenings); and screening for ovarian cancer. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to specify target levels of biomarker performance that enable evaluation of the potential clinical impact of biomarkers in early-phase studies. Nevertheless, biomarkers meeting the criteria should still be tested rigorously in studies that measure the actual impact on patient outcomes of using the biomarker to make clinical decisions.

The matching quality of experimental and control interventions in blinded pharmacological randomised clinical trials: a methodological systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Blinding is a pivotal method to avoid bias in randomised clinical trials. In blinded drug trials, experimental and control interventions are often designed to be matched, i.e. to appear indistinguishable. It is unknown how often matching procedures are inadequate, so we decided to systematically identify and analyse studies of matching quality in drug trials. Our primary objective was to assess the proportion of studies that concluded that the matching was inadequate; our secondary objective was to describe mechanisms for inadequate matching. METHODS: Systematic review. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar and Web of Science Citation Index for studies that assessed whether supposedly indistinguishable interventions (experimental and control) in randomized clinical drug trials could be distinguished based on physical properties (e.g. appearance or smell). Two persons decided on study eligibility and extracted data independently. Our primary analysis was based on the conclusions of each study. In supportive analyses, we defined a low and a high threshold for inadequate matching. We summarised results qualitatively. RESULTS: We included studies of 36 trials, of which 28 (78%) were published before 1977. The studies differed considerably with regard to design, methodology and analysis. Sixteen of the 36 studies (44%) concluded inadequate matching. When we adapted high or low thresholds for inadequate matching, the number of trials with inadequate matching was reduced to 12 (33%) or increased to 26 (72%). Inadequate matching was concluded in 7 of 22 trials (32%) based on a defined cohort of trials. Inadequate matching was concluded in 9 of 14 trials (64%) which were not based on a trial cohort, and therefore at a higher risk of publication bias. The proportion of inadequate matching did not seem to depend on publication year. Typical mechanisms of inadequate matching were differences in taste or colour. CONCLUSION: We identified matching quality studies of 36 randomized clinical drug trials. Sixteen of the 36 studies (44%) concluded inadequate matching. Few studies of matching quality in contemporary trials have been published, but show similar results as found for older trials. Inadequate matching in drug trials may be more prevalent than commonly believed.

The Net Reclassification Index (NRI): a Misleading Measure of Prediction Improvement Even with Independent Test Data Sets.

The Net Reclassification Index (NRI) is a very popular measure for evaluating the improvement in prediction performance gained by adding a marker to a set of baseline predictors. However, the statistical properties of this novel measure have not been explored in depth. We demonstrate the alarming result that the NRI statistic calculated on a large test dataset using risk models derived from a training set is likely to be positive even when the new marker has no predictive information. A related theoretical example is provided in which an incorrect risk function that includes an uninformative marker is proven to erroneously yield a positive NRI. Some insight into this phenomenon is provided. Since large values for the NRI statistic may simply be due to use of poorly fitting risk models, we suggest caution in using the NRI as the basis for marker evaluation. Other measures of prediction performance improvement, such as measures derived from the ROC curve, the net benefit function and the Brier score, cannot be large due to poorly fitting risk functions.

Clarithromycin for stable coronary heart disease increases all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and cerebrovascular morbidity over 10years in the CLARICOR randomised, blinded clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The CLARICOR trial reported that clarithromycin compared with placebo increased all-cause mortality in patients with stable coronary heart disease. This study investigates the effects of clarithromycin versus placebo during 10years follow up. METHODS: The CLARICOR trial is a randomised, placebo-controlled trial including 4373 patients with stable coronary heart disease. The interventions were 2weeks of clarithromycin 500mg a day versus placebo. 10year follow up was performed through Danish public registers and analysed with Cox regression. RESULTS: Clarithromycin increased all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR): 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00-1.21) and cerebrovascular disease during 10years (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.02-1.38). The increased mortality and morbidity were restricted to patients not on statin at entry (HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04-1.31, and HR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.03-1.50). The assumption of constant HR during the 10years was violated for cardiovascular death (P=0.01) and cardiovascular death outside hospital (P<0.0005). Analyses of the effects over time showed that clarithromycin increased cardiovascular mortality during the first three years (HR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.09-1.84) due to increased cardiovascular mortality outside hospital in patients not on statin (HR: 2.36, 95% CI: 1.60-3.50). During the last 4years, cardiovascular death outside hospital was lower in the clarithromycin group (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.88). CONCLUSION: Clarithromycin increased mortality due to cardiovascular death outside hospital and cerebrovascular morbidity in patients with stable coronary heart disease who were not on statin. The increased cardiovascular mortality was years later compensated, likely through frailty attrition.

Agreement between public register and adjudication committee outcome in a cardiovascular randomized clinical trial.

UNLABELLED: The objective of this study is to describe the agreement between randomized trial outcome assessment by committee and outcomes entirely identified through public registers. METHODS: In the CLARICOR trial, 4,372 patients with stable coronary heart disease received a short course of clarithromycin versus placebo and were followed up for 2.6 years. The pertinent hospital records and death certificates had originally been evaluated by the adjudication committee using common definitions of outcomes mapped into a 6-category list. We now mechanically converted the International Classification of Diseases-coded diagnoses of the public registries into the same categories. After cross-tabulation of the committee diagnoses with National Patient Register diagnoses and Register of Causes of Death, we calculate agreement and compare the estimated intervention effects of the 2 data sets. RESULTS: With public register data, the protocol-specified categories were slightly more frequent. Overall agreement was 74% for hospital discharges and 60% for cause of death, but the intervention effect, expressed as a hazard ratio, stayed within 4% of the value originally obtained with the adjudication committee (P ≥ .35). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show a modest agreement between formal adjudication and outcomes deducible from public registers. However, the estimated intervention effect did not differ noticeably between the 2 data sources. If studies on a wide range of public registers confirm these findings, register outcomes may be considered as a replacement for adjudication committees.

Osteoprotegerin independently predicts mortality in patients with stable coronary artery disease: the CLARICOR trial.

OBJECTIVES: To elucidate the prognostic power of serum osteoprotegerin (OPG) in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Serum OPG levels were measured in the CLARICOR trial cohort of 4063 patients with stable CAD on blood samples drawn at randomization. The follow-up was 2.6 years for detailed cardiovascular events and 6 years for all-cause mortality. RESULTS: OPG levels were significantly increased in non-survivors (21%) compared to survivors (median [quartiles] 2092 ng/L [1636; 2800] compared to 1695 ng/L [1322; 2193, p < 0.0001]). The 2.6-year follow-up showed that OPG adds to the prediction of both cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in combination with clinical risk factors (HR [one log10 unit increase] 6.1 [95% CI 2.4-15.6, p = 0.0001]) and HR 6.5 [95% CI 3.4-12.5, p < 0.0001], respectively). Similar, in the 6-year follow-up, OPG was found to be a strong predictor for all-cause mortality. Importantly, OPG remained an independent predictor of mortality even after adjustment for both clinical and conventional cardiovascular risk markers (HR 2.5 [95% CI 1.6-3.9, p < 0.0001]). CONCLUSIONS: Serum OPG has a long-lasting independent predictive power as to all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death in patients with stable CAD.