Viewpoint: Central adjudication of myocardial infarction in outcome-driven clinical trials – Common patterns in TRITON, RECORD, and PLATO?

Summary

Central adjudication in randomised controlled outcome-driven trials represents a traditional approach to maintain data integrity by applying uniformed rules for assessment of clinical events. It was the purpose of this investigation to determine the patterns of myocardial infarction (MI) adjudication in the TRITON, RECORD, and PLATO trials. We were matching centrally-adjudicated MI’s (CAMI’s) from the official trial publication with the site-reported MI (SRMI’s) count from the Food and Drug Administration’s secondary analyses for the investigational compounds prasugrel (TRITON), rosiglitazone (RECORD), and ticagrelor (PLATO). CAMI numbers showed a remarkable discrepancy to SRMI’s by more than a doubling of the difference: from 72 to 145 events in TRITON favoring prasugrel (from a hazard ratio [HR]=0.76, p=0.08; to a HR=0.76, p<0.001), and from 44 to 89 events in favour of ticagrelor in PLATO (from a HR=0.94, p=0.095; to a HR=0.84, p<0.001). In contrast, in the RECORD trial, the CAMI count was less than the SRMI count (from 24 to 8 events, from a HR=1.42, p=0.93; to a HR=1.14, p=0.96), in this case diminishing cardiovascular hazards in favour of rosiglitazone. In conclusion, central adjudication in the TRITON, the RECORD, and the PLATO trial turned out to have a critical impact on study outcomes. Trial publications should in the future include site-reported major efficacy and safety endpoints to preserve data integrity. The regulatory authorities should consider independent audits when there is a major disagreement between centrally adjudicated and site reported events influencing the results of a major clinical trial.

Keywords

Myocardial infarction - prasugrel - rosiglitazone - ticagrelor - clinical trials - event adjudication

• References

• 1 Cook D, Sinuff T, Zytaruk N. et al. DIRECT Investigators and Canadian Critical Care Trials Group Event adjudication and data monitoring in an intensive care unit observational study of thromboprophylaxis. J Crit Care 2009; 24: 168-175.
• 2 Granger CB, Vogel V, Cummings SR. et al. Do we need to adjudicate major clinical events?. Clin Trials 2008; 05: 56-60.
• 3 Jovanovic DR, Algra A, van Gijn J. Dutch TIA Trial Study Group Classification of outcomes events in the Dutch TIA trial: prognostic value of accepted and rejected events. Curr Med Res Opin 2004; 20: 255-258.
• 4 Dechartres A, Boutron I, Roy C. et al. Inadequate planning and reporting of adjudication committees in clinical trials: recommendation proposal. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 695-702.
• 5 Wiviott SD, Antman EM, Gibson CM. et al. TRITON-TIMI 38 Investigators Prasugrel versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2001-2015.
• 6 Home PD, Pocock SJ, Beck-Nielsen H. et al. for the RECORD Study Team. Rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiovascular outcomes in oral agent combination therapy for type 2 diabetes (RECORD): a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 2009; 373: 2125-2135.
• 7 Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A. et al the PLATO Investigators. Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1045-1057.
• 8 The FDA Prasugrel Secondary Review. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/09/briefing/2009-4412b1-00-FDA.htm Accessed June 18, 2012.
• 9 The FDA Rosiglitazone Secondary Review. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/…/Drugs/EndocrinologicandMetabolicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM218492.pdf Accessed June 18, 2012.
• 10 The FDA Ticagrelor Secondary Review. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/Cardiovascu-larandRenalDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM220192.pdf Accessed June 18, 2012.
• 11 Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S. et al. RE-LY Steering Committee and Investigators Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1139-1151.
• 12 Serebruany VL. Viewpoint: paradoxical excess mortality in the PLATO trial should be independently verified. Thromb Haemost 2011; 105: 752-759.
• 13 Wallentin L, Becker RC, James SK. et al. The PLATO trial reveals further opportunities to improve outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Thromb Haemost 2011; 105: 760-762.
• 14 Ohman EM, Roe MT. Explaining the unexpected: insights from the PLATelet inhibition and clinical Outcomes (PLATO) trial comparing ticagrelor and clopidogrel. Thromb Haemost 2011; 105: 763-765.