Back to Search Start Over

Effects of the endpoint adjudication process on the results of a randomised controlled trial: the ADVANCE trial.

Authors :
Jun Hata
Hisatomi Arima
Sophia Zoungas
Greg Fulcher
Carol Pollock
Mark Adams
John Watson
Rohina Joshi
Andre Pascal Kengne
Toshiharu Ninomiya
Craig Anderson
Mark Woodward
Anushka Patel
Giuseppe Mancia
Neil Poulter
Stephen MacMahon
John Chalmers
Bruce Neal
ADVANCE Collaborative Group
Source :
PLoS ONE, Vol 8, Iss 2, p e55807 (2013)
Publication Year :
2013
Publisher :
Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2013.

Abstract

Endpoint adjudication committees (EPAC) are widely used in clinical trials. The aim of the present analysis is to assess the effects of the endpoint adjudication process on the main findings of the ADVANCE trial (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00145925).The ADVANCE trial was a multicentre, 2 × 2 factorial randomised controlled trial of blood pressure lowering and intensive blood glucose control in 11140 patients with type 2 diabetes. Primary outcomes were major macrovascular (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke and cardiovascular death) and microvascular (new or worsening nephropathy and retinopathy) events. Suspected primary outcomes were initially reported by the investigators at the 215 sites with subsequent adjudication by the EPAC. The EPAC also adjudicated upon potential events identified directly by ongoing screening of all reported events. Over a median follow-up of 5 years, the site investigators reported one or more primary outcomes among 2443 participants. After adjudication these events were confirmed for 2077 (85%) with 48 further events added through the EPAC-led database screening process. The estimated relative risk reductions (95% confidence intervals) in the primary outcome for the blood pressure lowering comparison were 8% (-1 to 15%) based on the investigator-reported events and 9% (0 to 17%) based on the EPAC-based events (P for homogeneity = 0.70). The corresponding findings for the glucose comparison were 8% (1 to 15%) and 10% (2% to 18%) (P for homogeneity = 0.60). The effect estimates were also highly comparable when studied separately for macrovascular events and microvascular events for both comparisons (all P for homogeneity>0.6).The endpoint adjudication process had no discernible impact on the main findings in ADVANCE. These data highlight the need for careful consideration of the likely impact of an EPAC on the findings and conclusions of clinical trials prior to their establishment.

Subjects

Subjects :
Medicine
Science

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
19326203
Volume :
8
Issue :
2
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
PLoS ONE
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.4261a7988a994fea97d1ceec83f4e6e1
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055807