Comparability of Event Adjudication Versus Administrative Billing Claims for Outcome Ascertainment in the DAPT Study: Findings From the EXTEND-DAPT Study.

BACKGROUND: Data from administrative claims may provide an efficient alternative for end point ascertainment in clinical trials. However, it is uncertain how well claims data compare to adjudication by a clinical events committee in trials of patients with cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We matched 1336 patients ≥65 years old who received percutaneous coronary intervention in the DAPT (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) Study with the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry linked to Medicare claims as part of the EXTEND (Extending Trial-Based Evaluations of Medical Therapies Using Novel Sources of Data) Study. Adjudicated trial end points were compared with Medicare claims data with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes from inpatient hospitalizations using time-to-event analyses, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and kappa statistics. RESULTS: At 21-month follow-up, the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (combined mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke) was similar between trial-adjudicated events and claims data (7.9% versus 7.2%, respectively; P=0.50). Bleeding rates were lower using adjudicated events compared with claims (5.0% versus 8.6%, respectively; P<0.001). The sensitivity and positive predictive value of comprehensive billing codes for identifying adjudicated events were 65.6% and 85.7% for myocardial infarction, 61.5% and 47.1% for stroke, and 76.8% and 39.3% for bleeding, respectively. Specificity and negative predictive value for all outcomes ranged from 93.7% to 99.5%. All 39 adjudicated deaths were identified using Medicare data. Kappa statistics assessing agreement between events for myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding were 0.73, 0.52, and 0.49, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Claims data had moderate agreement with adjudication for myocardial infarction and poor agreement but high specificity for bleeding and stroke in the DAPT Study. Deaths were identified equivalently. Using claims data in clinical trials could be an efficient way to assess mortality among Medicare patients and may help detect other outcomes, although additional monitoring is likely needed to ensure accurate assessment of events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]