Alignment of site versus adjudication committee–based diagnosis with patient outcomes: Insights from the Providing Rapid Out of Hospital Acute Cardiovascular Treatment 3 trial
- 19 August 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Clinical Trials
- Vol. 13 (2), 140-148
- https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774515601437
Abstract
Background: Adjudication by an adjudication committee in clinical trials plays an important role in the assessment of outcomes. Controversy exists regarding the utility of adjudication committee versus site-based assessments and their relationship to subsequent clinical events. Methods: This study is a secondary analysis of the Providing Rapid Out of Hospital Acute Cardiovascular Treatment-3 trial, which randomized patients with chest pain or shortness of breath for biomarker testing in the ambulance. The emergency department physician diagnosis at the time of emergency department disposition was compared with an adjudicated diagnosis assigned by an adjudication committee. The level of agreement between emergency department and adjudication committee diagnosis was evaluated using kappa coefficient and compared to clinical outcomes (30-day re-hospitalization, 30-day and 1-year mortality). Results: Of the 477 patients, 49.3% were male with a median age of 70 years; hospital admission rate was 31.2%. The emergency department physicians and the adjudication committee disagreed in 55 cases (11.5%) with a kappa of 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.64, 0.78). The 30-day re-hospitalization, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality were 22%, 1.9%, and 9.4%, respectively. Although there were similar rates of re-hospitalization irrespective of adjudication, in cases of disagreement compared to agreement between adjudication committee and emergency department diagnosis, there was a higher 30-day (7.3% vs 1.2%, p = 0.002) and 1-year mortality (27.3% vs 7.1%, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Despite substantial agreement between the diagnosis of emergency department physicians and adjudication committee, in the subgroup of patients where there was disagreement, there was significantly worse short-term and long-term mortality.Keywords
This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- Providing Rapid Out of Hospital Acute Cardiovascular Treatment 3 (PROACT-3)Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 2014
- Strategic lessons from the clinical event classification process for the Assessment of Pexelizumab in Acute Myocardial Infarction (APEX-AMI) trialContemporary Clinical Trials, 2011
- A 2-h diagnostic protocol to assess patients with chest pain symptoms in the Asia-Pacific region (ASPECT): a prospective observational validation studyThe Lancet, 2011
- Comparing classifications of death in the Mode Selection Trial: Agreement and disagreement among site investigators and a clinical events committeeContemporary Clinical Trials, 2006
- Rapid Measurement of B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in the Emergency Diagnosis of Heart FailureNew England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- B-type natriuretic peptide predicts future cardiac events in patients presenting to the emergency department with dyspneaAnnals of Emergency Medicine, 2002
- Misreporting of myocardial infarction end points: Results of adjudication by a central clinical events committee in the PARAGON-B trialAmerican Heart Journal, 2002
- Systematic adjudication of myocardial infarction end-points in an international clinical trialTrials, 2001
- 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
- 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.European Heart Journal, 1999