Methods for safety and endpoint ascertainment: identification of adverse events through scrutiny of negatively adjudicated events
Open Access
- 9 April 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Trials
- Vol. 21 (1), 1-7
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04254-w
Abstract
The primary goal of phase 2 and 3 clinical trials is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of therapeutic interventions, and efficient and reproducible ascertainment of important clinical events, either as clinical outcome events (COEs) or adverse events (AEs), is critical. Clinical outcomes require consistency and clinical judgment, so these events are often adjudicated centrally by clinical events classification (CEC) physician reviewers using standardized definitions. In contrast, AEs are reported by sites to the trial coordinating center based on common reporting criteria set by regulatory authorities and trial sponsors. These different requirements have led to the development of separate tracks for COE and AE review. Potential COEs that fail to meet standardized definitions for CEC adjudication – i.e. negatively adjudicated events (NAE) – may meet criteria for AEs. Trial oversight practices require the sponsor to process AEs regardless of how the AEs are submitted; therefore, review of NAEs may be necessary to ensure that important AEs do not go unreported. The Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) developed and implemented a process for scrutinizing NAEs to detect potential missed serious AEs. Initial experience with this process across two trials suggests that approximately 0.2% of NAEs are serious unexpected AEs that were not otherwise reported and another 1.5% are serious expected AEs. Given their infrequent concealment of serious AEs in two large trials assessing cardiovascular outcomes, routine scrutiny of NAEs to identify AEs is not recommended at this time, though it may be useful in some trials and should be carefully considered by the trial team. Closer integration of data across safety surveillance and endpoint adjudication systems may enable scrutiny of NAEs when indicated while limiting complexity associated with this process.This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Inaccuracy of Patient Recall for COPD Exacerbation Rate Estimation and Its ImplicationsSocial psychiatry. Sozialpsychiatrie. Psychiatrie sociale, 2016
- Rationale and design of the Affordability and Real-world Antiplatelet Treatment Effectiveness after Myocardial Infarction Study (ARTEMIS): A multicenter, cluster-randomized trial of P2Y12 receptor inhibitor copayment reduction after myocardial infarctionAmerican Heart Journal, 2016
- Effect of the REG1 anticoagulation system versus bivalirudin on outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (REGULATE-PCI): a randomised clinical trialThe Lancet, 2015
- Alignment of site versus adjudication committee–based diagnosis with patient outcomes: Insights from the Providing Rapid Out of Hospital Acute Cardiovascular Treatment 3 trialClinical Trials, 2015
- Optimizing Expedited Safety Reporting for Drugs and Biologics Subject to an Investigational New Drug ApplicationTherapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2014
- Dronedarone in High-Risk Permanent Atrial FibrillationThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2011
- Do we need to adjudicate major clinical events?Clinical Trials, 2008
- Effects of Torcetrapib in Patients at High Risk for Coronary EventsThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2007
- Comparison of Self-Report, Hospital Discharge Codes, and Adjudication of Cardiovascular Events in the Women's Health InitiativeAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 2004
- Disagreements between central clinical events committee and site investigator assessments of myocardial infarction endpoints in an international clinical trial: review of the PURSUIT studyTrials, 2001