Effects of the end point adjudication process on the results of the perindopril protection against recurrent stroke study (PROGRESS)

Stroke

Volumn 40, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 2111-2115

  Ninomiya, Toshiharu ^a   Donnan, Geoff ^b,f   Anderson, Neil ^c   Bladin, Chris ^d,e   Chambers, Brian ^b,f,g   Gordon, Gary ^d   Sharpe, Norman ^f,h   Chalmers, John ^a,i   Woodward, Mark ^a,i,j   Neal, Bruce ^a,i,k  

^a GEORGE INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL HEALTH   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^c AUCKLAND CITY HOSPITAL   (New Zealand)

^d BOX HILL HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^e MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^f FLOREY INSTITUTE OF NEUROSCIENCE AND MENTAL HEALTH   (Australia)

^g AUSTIN HEALTH   (Australia)

^h UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^j MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^k ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL   (Australia)

more..

Author keywords

Adjudication; Clinical trial; Outcomes

Indexed keywords

INDAPAMIDE; PERINDOPRIL; DIPEPTIDYL CARBOXYPEPTIDASE INHIBITOR;

ARTICLE; CAUSE OF DEATH; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; DRUG EFFECT; END POINT ADJUDICATION PROCESS; HAZARD RATIO; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECURRENT DISEASE; STROKE; BIOASSAY; BRAIN HEMORRHAGE; BRAIN ISCHEMIA; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; NOMENCLATURE; PATHOLOGY; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ANGIOTENSIN-CONVERTING ENZYME INHIBITORS; BRAIN ISCHEMIA; CEREBRAL HEMORRHAGE; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; PERINDOPRIL; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; RECURRENCE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STROKE; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 66849093894     PISSN: 00392499     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.539601     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Granger CB, Vogel V, Cummings SR, Held P, Fiedorek F, Lawrence MNeal B, Reidies H, Santarelli L, Schroyer R, Stockbridge NL, Feng Zhao. Do we need to adjudicate major clinical events? Clin Trials. 2008;5: 56-60.
2. Petersen JL, Haque G, Hellkamp AS, Flaker GC, Mark Estes NA III, Marchlinski FE, McAnulty JH, Greenspon AJ, Marinchak RA, Lee KL, Lamas GA, Mahaffey KW; MOST Clinical Events Committee. Comparing classifications of death in the Mode Selection Trial: agreement and disagreement among site investigators and a clinical events committee. Contemp Clin Trials. 2006;27:260-268.
3. 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. Systematic adjudication of myocardial infarction end-points in an international clinical trial. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2001;2:180-186.
4. 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;2:187-194.
5. Epstein AE, Carlson MD, Fogoros RN, Higgins SL, Venditti FJ Jr. Classification of depth in antiarrhythmia trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996; 27:433-442.
6. Cleland JG, Erhardt L, Hall AS, Winter C, Ball SG. Validation of primary and secondary outcomes and classification of mode of death among patients with clinical evidence of heart failure after myocardial infarction: a report from the Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) Study Investigators. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1993;22(suppl 9):S22-S27.
7. Naslund U, Grip L, Fischer-Hansen J, Gundersen T, Lehto S, Wallentin L. The impact of an end-point committee in a large multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial: results with and without the end-point committee's final decision on end-points. Eur Heart J. 1999; 20:771-777.
8. Mahaffey KW, Roe MT, Dyke CK, Newby LK, Kleiman NS, Connolly P, Berdan LG, Sparapani R, Lee KL, Armstrong PW, Topol EJ, Califf RM, Harrington RA. Misreporting of myocardial infarction end points: results of adjudication by a central clinical events committee in the PARAGON-B trial. Second Platelet IIb/IIIa Antagonist for the Reduction of Acute Coronary Syndrome Events in a Global Organization Network Trial. Am Heart J. 2002;143:242-248.
9. Kirwan BA, Lubsen J, de Brouwer S, Danchin N, Battler A, Bayes de Luna A, Dunselman PH, Glasser S, Koudstaal PJ, Sutton G, van Dalen FJ, Poole-Wilson PA; ACTION (A Coronary disease Trial Investigating Outcome with Nifedipine GITS) investigators. Diagnostic criteria and adjudication process both determine published event-rates: the ACTION trial experience. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28:720-729.
10. Adams HP Jr, Bendixen BH, Kappelle LJ, Biller J, Love BB, Gordon DL, Marsh EE III. Classification of subtype of acute ischaemic stroke: definition for use in a multicenter clinical trial. TOAST. Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment. Stroke 1993;24:35-41.
11. Walter SD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, King D, Troyan S. Outcome assessment for clinical trials: how many adjudicators do we need? Control Clin Trials. 1997;18:27-42.
12. PROGRESS Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of a perindopril-based blood pressure lowering regimen among 6,105 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Lancet. 2001;358:1033-1041.
13. Neal B, MacMahon S. PROGRESS (Perindopril Protection Against Recurrent Stroke Study): rationale and design. PROGRESS Management Committee. J Hypertens. 1995;13:1869 -1873.
14. Public Health Service-Health Care Financing Administration. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), 6th ed. Bethesda: DHHS Publication No (PHS) 80-1260; 2001.
15. Chapman N, Huxley R, Anderson C, Bousser MG, Chalmers J, Colman S, Davis S, Donnan G, MacMahon S, Neal B, Warlow C, Woodward M; Writing Committee for the PROGRESS Collaborative Group. Effects of a perindopril-based blood pressure-lowering regimen on the risk of recurrent stroke according to stroke subtype and medical history: the PROGRESS Trial. Stroke 2004;35:116-121.
16. Woodward M. Epidemiology: Study Design and Data Analysis, 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press; 2005.
17. Rubins HB, Robins SJ, Collins D, Fye CL, Anderson JW, Elam MB, Faas FH, Linares E, Schaefer EJ, Schectman G, Wilt TJ, Wittes J. Gemfibrozil for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in men with low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Veterans Affairs High- Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Intervention Trial Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:410-418.
18. Engel LW, Strauchen JA, Chiazze L Jr, Heid M. Accuracy of death certification in an autopsied population with specific attention to malignant neoplasms and vascular diseases. Am J Epidemiol. 1980;111: 99-112.
19. Percy C, Stanek E III, Gloeckler L. Accuracy of cancer death certificates and its effect on cancer mortality statistics. Am J Public Health. 1981; 71:242-250.
20. Modelmog D, Rahlenbeck S, Trichopoulos D. Accuracy of death certificates: a population-based, complete-coverage, one-year autopsy study in East Germany. Cancer Causes Control. 1992;3:541-546.