| 1. |
- Guimares, Patricia O., et al.
(author)
-
Reporting Clinical End Points and Safety Events in an Acute Coronary Syndrome Trial : Results With Integrated Collection
- 2017
-
In: Journal of the American Heart Association. - : WILEY. - 2047-9980. ; 6:4
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background-End points and adverse events (AEs) are collected separately in clinical trials, yet regulatory requirements for serious AE reporting vary across regions, so classifying end points according to seriousness criteria can be useful in global trials. Methods and Results-In the Apixaban for Prevention of Acute Ischemic Events 2 (APPRAISE-2) trial, patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome were randomized to apixaban or placebo for the prevention of recurrent ischemic events. Suspected end points (myocardial infarction, stroke, or bleeding) were adjudicated by an independent clinical events classification committee. Safety criteria were collected for suspected end points and AEs. Patient-level event rates per 100 patient-days of follow-up, modeled using Poisson regression, explored the influence of region and patient characteristics on event reporting. Overall, 13 909 events were reported by 858 sites in 39 countries; 8.4% (n=1166) were suspected end points, and 91.6% (n=12 743) were AEs. Overall, 66.0% of suspected end points were confirmed by the clinical events classification committee. Most clinical events classification committee-confirmed end points met criteria to be classified as serious (94.0%); many clinical events classification committee-negated end points also did (63.2%), but fewer AEs met seriousness criteria (17.9%). The most common seriousness criterion was hospitalization (79.9%, n=2594). Region explained 28.7% of end point-and 26.4% of serious AE-reporting variation, and patient characteristics explained an additional 25.4% of end point and 13.4% of serious AE variation. Nonserious AE-reporting variation was not explained by adjustment. Conclusions-An integrated collection of end points and serious AEs is feasible in a multinational trial and illustrates the shared characteristics of events. Tailoring event collection to fit the phase and purpose of the trial is achievable and informative.
|
|
| 2. |
- Zimerman, Andre, et al.
(author)
-
Pooled analysis of adverse event collection from 4 acute coronary syndrome trials
- 2016
-
In: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 174, s. 60-67
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Adverse event collection in randomized clinical trials establishes drug safety. Although costly and regulated, it is rarely studied.Methods: Adverse event data from 4 clinical trials (APPRAISE-2, PLATO, TRACER, TRILOGY ACS) comprising 48,118 participants with acute coronary syndromes were pooled to compare patterns and determinants of reporting. Events were classified as serious (SAE) or nonserious (AE) from hospital discharge to 1 year; study end points were excluded.Results: In total, 84,901 events were reported. Of those, 12,266 (14.4%) were SAEs and 72,635 (85.6%) were AEs. Of all participants, 7,823 (16.3%) had SAEs, 18,124 (37.7%) had only AEs, and 22,171 (46.1%) had neither. Nonserious adverse events were distributed across system organ classes: general disorders (11%), infection (10%), gastrointestinal (10%), respiratory (9%), cardiovascular (8.4%), and other (35%). Serious adverse events had a higher proportion of cardiovascular causes (14.0%). Event reporting was highest after hospital discharge, decreasing rapidly during the following 3 months. In a Cox proportional hazards model, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (hazard ratio 1.58, 95% CI 1.44-1.74), heart failure (1.55, 1.40-1.70), older age, and female sex were independent predictors of more SAEs, whereas enrollment in Eastern Europe (0.63, 0.58-0.69) or Asia (0.84, 0.75-0.94) were independent predictors of fewer SAEs.Conclusions: Half of all participants reported adverse events in the year after acute coronary syndrome; most were AEs and occurred within 3 months. The high volume of events, as well as the variation in SAE reporting by characteristics and enrollment region, indicates that efforts to refine event collection in large trials are warranted.
|
|
