Dataset Information

Retrospective analysis of arterial occlusive events in the PACE trial by an independent adjudication committee.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The phase 2 PACE (Ponatinib Ph+ ALL and CML Evaluation) trial of ponatinib showed robust long-term benefit in relapsed Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) leukemia; arterial occlusive events (AOEs) occurred in ≥ 25% of patients based on investigator reporting. However, AOE rates vary depending on the definitions and reporting approach used.

Methods

To better understand clinically relevant AOEs with ponatinib, an independent cardiovascular adjudication committee reviewed 5-year AOE data from the PACE trial according to a charter-defined process and standardized event definitions.

Results

A total of 449 patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) or Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) received ponatinib (median age 59 y; 47% female; 93% ≥ 2 prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs); median follow-up, 37.3 months). The adjudicated AOE rate (17%) was lower than the non-adjudicated rate (i.e., rate before adjudication; 25%). The only adjudicated AOE in > 2% of patients was peripheral arterial occlusive disease (4%). Exposure-adjusted incidence of newly occurring adjudicated AOEs decreased over time. Patients with multiple baseline cardiovascular risk factors had higher adjudicated AOE rates than those without risk factors.

Conclusions

This independent adjudication study identified lower AOE rates than previously reported, suggesting earlier overestimation that may inaccurately reflect AOE risk with ponatinib. This trial was registered under ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01207440 on September 23, 2010 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01207440 ).

SUBMITTER: Januzzi JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8734305 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and purposeBlinded outcome assessment in trials with prospective randomized open blinded end point design is challenging. Unblinding can result in misclassified outcomes and biased treatment effect estimates. An outcome adjudication committee assures blinded outcome assessment, but the added value for trials with prospective randomized open blinded end point design and subjective outcomes is unknown. We aimed to assess the degree of misclassification of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores by a central assessor and its impact on treatment effect estimates in a stroke trial with prospective randomized open blinded end point design.MethodsWe used data from the MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands). The primary outcome was the mRS at 90 days. Standardized, algorithm-based telephone interviews to assess the mRS were conducted from a central location by an experienced research nurse, unaware but not formally blinded to treatment allocation (central assessor). Masked reports of these interviews were adjudicated by a blinded outcome committee. Misclassification was defined as an incorrect classification of the mRS by the central assessor. The effect of endovascular treatment on the mRS was assessed with multivariable ordinal logistic regression.ResultsIn MR CLEAN, 53/500 (10.6%) of the mRS scores were misclassified. The degree and direction of misclassification did not differ between treatment arms (P=0.59). Benefit of endovascular treatment was shown on the mRS when scored by the central assessor (adjusted common odds ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.16-2.21]) and the outcome adjudication committee (adjusted common odds ratio, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.21-2.20]).ConclusionsMisclassification by the central assessor was small, randomly distributed over treatment arms, and did not affect treatment effect estimates. This study suggests that the added value of a blinded outcome adjudication committee is limited in a stroke trial with prospective randomized open blinded end point design applying standardized, algorithm-based outcome assessment by a central assessor, who is unaware but not formally blinded to treatment allocation. Registration: URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN10888758.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Adjudicated cause-specific mortality has been used in major trials of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, there is less experience with adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events as a key efficacy outcome in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trials. The Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trial required a Clinical Endpoint Committee to adjudicate the outcomes of modified major adverse cardiovascular events and cause-specific mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS:A six-member Clinical Endpoint Committee reviewed adverse event and serious adverse event reports included in a list of 204 Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms. Adverse events were triaged by one Clinical Endpoint Committee member, and then reviewed by three reviewers (round 1). If these three disagreed on the adjudication, the event was discussed by the full committee to reach a consensus (round 2). Among 16,485 participants, 48,105 adverse events were reported, among which 3314 were reviewed by the Clinical Endpoint Committee. After triage, 1827 were adjudicated in round 1; 338 required committee consensus in round 2, yielding 450 myocardial infarctions, strokes, unstable anginas or transient ischaemic attacks. Only 20/1627 (1%) non-serious adverse events were adjudicated as cardiovascular events. Only 45/204 Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms reviewed yielded cardiovascular events. A total of 430 deaths were adjudicated in round 1 and 631 in round 2, yielding 459 cardiovascular deaths. Adjudication of chest pain and sudden death often required additional information from site investigators. Site assessment of cardiovascular death was moderately specific (501/602?=?83%) but not sensitive (256/459?=?56%). CONCLUSION:A Clinical Endpoint Committee is useful for adjudication of major adverse cardiovascular events in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trials but requires considerable resources and effort by investigators. This process can be streamlined by reviewing only serious adverse events and filtering by selected Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms.