Skip to main content

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

Publication ,  Journal Article
Mahaffey, KW; Harrington, RA; Akkerhuis, M; Kleiman, NS; Berdan, LG; Crenshaw, BS; Tardiff, BE; Granger, CB; DeJong, I; Bhapkar, M; Widimsky, P ...
Published in: Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med
July 17, 2001

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.

Duke Scholars

Published In

Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med

DOI

ISSN

1468-6708

Publication Date

July 17, 2001

Volume

2

Issue

4

Start / End Page

187 / 194

Location

England

Related Subject Headings

  • General & Internal Medicine
  • Cardiovascular System & Hematology
  • 4203 Health services and systems
  • 4202 Epidemiology
  • 3202 Clinical sciences
  • 1103 Clinical Sciences
  • 1102 Cardiorespiratory Medicine and Haematology
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Mahaffey, K. W., Harrington, R. A., Akkerhuis, M., Kleiman, N. S., Berdan, L. G., Crenshaw, B. S., … For the PURSUIT Investigators, . (2001). Disagreements between central clinical events committee and site investigator assessments of myocardial infarction endpoints in an international clinical trial: review of the PURSUIT study. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med, 2(4), 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1186/cvm-2-4-187
Mahaffey, Kenneth W., Robert A. Harrington, Martijn Akkerhuis, Neal S. Kleiman, Lisa G. Berdan, Brian S. Crenshaw, Barbara E. Tardiff, et al. “Disagreements between central clinical events committee and site investigator assessments of myocardial infarction endpoints in an international clinical trial: review of the PURSUIT study.Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 2, no. 4 (July 17, 2001): 187–94. https://doi.org/10.1186/cvm-2-4-187.
Mahaffey KW, Harrington RA, Akkerhuis M, Kleiman NS, Berdan LG, Crenshaw BS, et al. Disagreements between central clinical events committee and site investigator assessments of myocardial infarction endpoints in an international clinical trial: review of the PURSUIT study. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2001 Jul 17;2(4):187–94.
Mahaffey, Kenneth W., et al. “Disagreements between central clinical events committee and site investigator assessments of myocardial infarction endpoints in an international clinical trial: review of the PURSUIT study.Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med, vol. 2, no. 4, July 2001, pp. 187–94. Pubmed, doi:10.1186/cvm-2-4-187.
Mahaffey KW, Harrington RA, Akkerhuis M, Kleiman NS, Berdan LG, Crenshaw BS, Tardiff BE, Granger CB, DeJong I, Bhapkar M, Widimsky P, Corbalon R, Lee KL, Deckers JW, Simoons ML, Topol EJ, Califf RM, For the PURSUIT Investigators. Disagreements between central clinical events committee and site investigator assessments of myocardial infarction endpoints in an international clinical trial: review of the PURSUIT study. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2001 Jul 17;2(4):187–194.

Published In

Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med

DOI

ISSN

1468-6708

Publication Date

July 17, 2001

Volume

2

Issue

4

Start / End Page

187 / 194

Location

England

Related Subject Headings

  • General & Internal Medicine
  • Cardiovascular System & Hematology
  • 4203 Health services and systems
  • 4202 Epidemiology
  • 3202 Clinical sciences
  • 1103 Clinical Sciences
  • 1102 Cardiorespiratory Medicine and Haematology