RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Morning influenza vaccination enhances antibody response. In this posthoc analysis of the DANFLU-1 trial, we sought to evaluate the association between time of day for vaccination (ToV) and outcomes, and whether ToV modified the relative effectiveness of high-dose (QIV-HD) vs. standard-dose (QIV-SD) quadrivalent influenza vaccine. METHODS: DANFLU-1 was a pragmatic feasibility trial of QIV-HD vs. QIV-SD. Outcomes included hospitalizations and mortality. For subgroup analysis, the population was dichotomized at median ToV into two groups (early and late). RESULTS: The study population included 12,477 participants. Mean age was 71.7±3.9 years with 5,877 (47.1%) female participants. Median ToV was 11.29AM. Earlier ToV was associated with fewer respiratory hospitalizations independent of vaccine type, which persisted in adjusted analysis (IRR 0.88 per 1-hour decrement (95% CI 0.78- 0.98, p=0.025). No effect modification by continuous or dichotomous ToV was found. In subgroup analysis, effects consistently favored QIV-HD against hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza (early: IRR 0.30; late: 0.29), all-cause hospitalizations (early: IRR 0.87; late: 0.86), and mortality (early: HR 0.53; late: 0.50). CONCLUSION: In this exploratory post-hoc analysis, earlier ToV was associated with fewer respiratory hospitalizations. The relative effectiveness of QIV-HD vs. QIV-SD was not modified by ToV. Further research is needed to confirm findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05048589.

RESUMEN

Clinical evidence generation from and for representative populations can be improved through increased research access and ease of trial participation. To improve access and participation, a modern trial infrastructure is needed that broadens research into more routine practice. This commentary highlights current barriers, areas of advancement, and actions needed to enable continued transformation toward a modern trial infrastructure for an improved evidence generation system. The focus of this commentary is on the development of medical products (e.g., drugs, devices, biologics) and infrastructure issues within the United States, with the aim to have broader, multi-national applicability.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Hyperuricaemia and gout are common in chronic kidney disease (CKD). We aimed to assess the effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibition on uric acid (urate) and gout in patients with CKD. METHODS: The EMPA-KIDNEY trial randomised 6609 patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥20 and <90 mL/min/1.73m2) to receive either empagliflozin 10 mg daily or matching placebo over a median of two years follow-up. Serum uric acid was measured at randomisation then 2 and 18 months of follow-up and the effects of empagliflozin were analysed using a pre-specified mixed model repeated measures approach. Participant-reported gout events were analysed in Cox regression models (first events) with the Andersen-Gill extension (total events). A post-hoc composite outcome included new initiation of uric acid lowering therapy or colchicine. EMPA-KIDNEY primary and kidney disease progression outcomes were also assessed in subgroups of baseline serum uric acid. RESULTS: Baseline mean ± SD serum uric acid concentration was 431±114 µmol/L. Allocation to empagliflozin resulted in a study-average between-group difference in serum uric acid of -25.6 (95%CI -30.3,-21.0) µmol/L with larger effects in those with higher eGFR (trend P < 0.001) and without diabetes (heterogeneity P < 0.001). Compared to placebo, empagliflozin did not significantly reduce first or total gout events (HR 0.87, 95%CI 0.74-1.02 for the 595 first events, and 0.86, 0.72-1.03 for the 869 total events) with similar hazard ratios for the post-hoc composite and across subgroups, including by diabetes and eGFR. The effect of empagliflozin on the primary outcome and kidney disease progression outcomes were similar irrespective of baseline level of uric acid. CONCLUSION: SGLT2 inhibition reduces serum uric acid in patients with CKD with larger effects at higher eGFR and in the absence of diabetes. However, the effect on uric acid is modest and did not translate into reduced risk of gout in EMPA-KIDNEY.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been proposed as a potential treatment for adults hospitalised with COVID-19, due to their potential anti-inflammatory and endothelial protective effects. Published evidence from randomised control trials (RCTs) does not provide evidence of benefit. We aimed to estimate the effect of oral administration of SGLT2 inhibitors compared with usual care or placebo in adults hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: Eligible RCTs that estimated the effect of oral administration of SGLT2 inhibitors compared with usual care or placebo on 28-day all-cause mortality (primary outcome) were included in this prospective meta-analysis. The primary safety outcome was ketoacidosis by 28 days. Trials were identified through systematic searches of ClinicalTrials.gov, EudraCT, and the WHO ISRCTN registry between Nov 1, 2022 and Jan 31, 2023. The search terms were "random*" AND "COVID" AND each SGLT2i, not restricted by trial status or language. Individual searches were then combined. Prespecified summary outcome data, overall and within subgroups of interest, were provided by each trial. The primary analyses were inverse variance weighted meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023406442. FINDINGS: Three eligible trials randomly assigned 6096 participants (3025 to the SGLT2 inhibitor group and 3071 to the usual care or placebo group). 2381 (39%) patients were women and 1547 (25%) had type 2 diabetes at randomisation. By 28 days, there were 351 deaths in the SGLT2 inhibitor group and 382 deaths in the usual care or placebo group (summary OR 0·93 [95% CI 0·79-1·08]; p=0·33, I2 for inconsistency across trials 0%). The risk of bias was assessed as being low. Ketoacidosis was observed in seven participants in the SGLT2 inhibitor group and two patients in the usual care or placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Although administration of SGLT2 inhibitor was safe, we found no clear evidence that adding SGLT2 inhibitor therapy improved outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with usual care or placebo. These data do not support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors as standard treatment in adults hospitalised for COVID-19. FUNDING: None.

RESUMEN

Background: Influenza vaccination reduces the risk of adverse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). We sought to evaluate whether the presence of CVD modified the relative effectiveness of high-dose (QIV-HD) vs. standard-dose (QIV-SD) quadrivalent influenza vaccine in this prespecified analysis of the DANFLU-1 trial. Methods: DANFLU-1 was a pragmatic, open-label, randomized feasibility trial of QIV-HD vs. QIV-SD in adults aged 65-79 years during the 2021/2022 influenza season in Denmark. Vaccines were allocated in a 1:1 ratio. Baseline and follow-up data regarding diagnoses and mortality were obtained from Danish national registers. The trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05048589. The CVDs assessed included heart failure (HF), ischemic heart disease (IHD), atrial fibrillation, and a combined group denoted "chronic CVD" consisting of the aforementioned diseases, among others. Prespecified outcomes included hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza, respiratory disease, CVD, cardiorespiratory disease, all-cause hospitalizations, and mortality. Effect modification was tested using interaction terms. Results: The final study population included 12,477 participants (mean age 71.7±3.9 years, 5,877 (47.1%) female), of whom 2,540 (20.4%) had chronic CVD. QIV-HD vs. QIV-SD was associated with a lower incidence of hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza (IRR 0.30 (95%-CI 0.14-0.64)) and all-cause mortality (IRR 0.51 (0.30-0.86)) regardless of chronic CVD (p for interaction=0.57 and 0.49, respectively). The relative effectiveness of QIV-HD vs. QIV-SD against all-cause hospitalizations was modified in participants with chronic CVD (Overall: IRR 0.87 (0.76-0.99); no chronic CVD: 0.79 (0.67-0.92); chronic CVD: 1.11 (0.88-1.39); p for interaction=0.026). No other effect modification was observed by the presence of chronic CVD, HF, IHD, or atrial fibrillation. Conclusions: The relative effectiveness of QIV-HD vs. QIV-SD was consistent against hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza and all-cause mortality regardless of chronic CVD. However, the relative effectiveness against all-cause hospitalizations was modified by the presence of chronic CVD. These results should be considered hypothesis-generating.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials are essential to reliably assess medical interventions. Nevertheless, interpretation of such studies, particularly when considering absolute effects, is enhanced by understanding how the trial population may differ from the populations it aims to represent. METHODS: We compared baseline characteristics and mortality of RECOVERY participants recruited in England (n = 38,510) with a reference population hospitalised with COVID-19 in England (n = 346,271) from March 2020 to November 2021. We used linked hospitalisation and mortality data for both cohorts to extract demographics, comorbidity/frailty scores, and crude and age- and sex-adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Demographics of RECOVERY participants were broadly similar to the reference population, but RECOVERY participants were younger (mean age [standard deviation]: RECOVERY 62.6 [15.3] vs reference 65.7 [18.5] years) and less frequently female (37% vs 45%). Comorbidity and frailty scores were lower in RECOVERY, but differences were attenuated after age stratification. Age- and sex-adjusted 28-day mortality declined over time but was similar between cohorts across the study period (RECOVERY 23.7% [95% confidence interval: 23.3-24.1%]; vs reference 24.8% [24.6-25.0%]), except during the first pandemic wave in the UK (March-May 2020) when adjusted mortality was lower in RECOVERY. CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted 28-day mortality in RECOVERY was similar to a nationwide reference population of patients admitted with COVID-19 in England during the same period but varied substantially over time in both cohorts. Therefore, the absolute effect estimates from RECOVERY were broadly applicable to the target population at the time but should be interpreted in the light of current mortality estimates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN50189673- Feb. 04, 2020, NCT04381936- May 11, 2020.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are recommended treatment for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but uncertainty exists regarding their use in patients with frailty and/or multimorbidity, among whom polypharmacy is common. We derived a multivariable logistic regression model to predict hospitalization (reflecting frailty) and assessed empagliflozin's risk-benefit profile in a post-hoc analysis of the double-blind, placebo-controlled EMPA-KIDNEY trial. METHODS: The EMPA-KIDNEY trial randomized 6609 patients with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥20<45 mL/min/1.73m2, or ≥45<90 mL/min/1.73m2 with urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio ≥200 mg/g) to receive either empagliflozin 10 mg daily or matching placebo and followed for two years (median). Additional characteristics analysed in subgroups were multimorbidity, polypharmacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at baseline. Cox regression analyses were performed with subgroups defined by approximate thirds of each variable. RESULTS: The strongest predictors of hospitalization were N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide, poor mobility and diabetes; then eGFR and other comorbidities. Empagliflozin was generally well-tolerated independent of predicted risk of hospitalization. In relative terms, allocation to empagliflozin reduced the risk of the primary outcome of kidney disease progression or cardiovascular death by 28% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.82); and all-cause hospitalization by 14% (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.95); with broadly consistent effects across subgroups of predicted risk of hospitalization, multimorbidity, polypharmacy or HRQoL. In absolute terms, the estimated benefits of empagliflozin were greater in those at highest predicted risk of hospitalization (reflecting frailty) and outweighed potential serious harms. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the use of SGLT2 inhibitors in CKD, irrespective of frailty, multimorbidity or polypharmacy.

RESUMEN

Importance: Optimal health care delivery, both now and in the future, requires a continuous loop of knowledge generation, dissemination, and uptake on how best to provide care, not just determining what interventions work but also how best to ensure they are provided to those who need them. The randomized clinical trial (RCT) is the most rigorous instrument to determine what works in health care. However, major issues with both the clinical trials enterprise and the lack of integration of clinical trials with health care delivery compromise medicine's ability to best serve society. Observations: In most resource-rich countries, the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises function as separate entities, with siloed goals, infrastructure, and incentives. Consequently, RCTs are often poorly relevant and responsive to the needs of patients and those responsible for care delivery. At the same time, health care delivery systems are often disengaged from clinical trials and fail to rapidly incorporate knowledge generated from RCTs into practice. Though longstanding, these issues are more pressing given the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened awareness of the disproportionate impact of poor access to optimal care on vulnerable populations, and the unprecedented opportunity for improvement offered by the digital revolution in health care. Four major areas must be improved. First, especially in the US, greater clarity is required to ensure appropriate regulation and oversight of implementation science, quality improvement, embedded clinical trials, and learning health systems. Second, greater adoption is required of study designs that improve statistical and logistical efficiency and lower the burden on participants and clinicians, allowing trials to be smarter, safer, and faster. Third, RCTs could be considerably more responsive and efficient if they were better integrated with electronic health records. However, this advance first requires greater adoption of standards and processes designed to ensure health data are adequately reliable and accurate and capable of being transferred responsibly and efficiently across platforms and organizations. Fourth, tackling the problems described above requires alignment of stakeholders in the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises through financial and nonfinancial incentives, which could be enabled by new legislation. Solutions exist for each of these problems, and there are examples of success for each, but there is a failure to implement at adequate scale. Conclusions and Relevance: The gulf between current care and that which could be delivered has arguably never been wider. A key contributor is that the 2 limbs of knowledge generation and implementation-the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises-operate as a house divided. Better integration of these 2 worlds is key to accelerated improvement in health care delivery.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIM: High-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-HD) has been shown to be more effective than standard-dose (QIV-SD) in reducing influenza infection, but whether diabetes status affects relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) is unknown. We aimed to assess rVE on change in glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c (∆HbA1c)], incident diabetes, total all-cause hospitalizations (first + recurrent), and a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza. METHODS: DANFLU-1 was a pragmatic, open-label trial randomizing adults (65-79 years) 1:1 to QIV-HD or QIV-SD during the 2021/22 influenza season. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate rVE against incident diabetes and the composite endpoint, negative binomial regression to estimate rVE against all-cause hospitalizations, and ANCOVA when assessing rVE against ∆HbA1c. RESULTS: Of the 12 477 participants, 1162 (9.3%) had diabetes at baseline. QIV-HD, compared with QIV-SD, was associated with a reduction in the rate of all-cause hospitalizations irrespective of diabetes [overall: 647 vs. 742 events, incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.87, 95% CI (0.76-0.99); diabetes: 93 vs. 118 events, IRR: 0.80, 95% CI (0.55-1.15); without diabetes: 554 vs. 624 events, IRR: 0.88, 95% CI (0.76-1.01), pinteraction = 0.62]. Among those with diabetes, QIV-HD was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome [2 vs. 11 events, HR: 0.18, 95% CI (0.04-0.83)] but had no effect on ∆HbA1c; QIV-HD adjusted mean difference: ∆ + 0.2 mmol/mol, 95% CI (-0.9 to 1.2). QIV-HD did not affect the risk of incident diabetes [HR 1.18, 95% CI (0.94-1.47)]. CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis, QIV-HD versus QIV-SD was associated with an increased rVE against the composite of all-cause death and hospitalization for pneumonia/influenza, and the all-cause hospitalization rate irrespective of diabetes status.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relative effectiveness of high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-HD) versus standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV-SD) against recurrent hospitalizations and its potential variation in relation to influenza circulation. METHODS: We did a post-hoc analysis of a pragmatic, open-label, randomized trial of QIV-HD versus QIV-SD performed during the 2021-2022 influenza season among adults aged 65-79 years. Participants were enrolled in October 2021-November, 2021 and followed for outcomes from 14 days postvaccination until 31 May, 2022. We investigated the following outcomes: Hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza, respiratory hospitalizations, cardio-respiratory hospitalizations, cardiovascular hospitalizations, all-cause hospitalizations, and all-cause death. Outcomes were analysed as recurrent events. Cumulative numbers of events were assessed weekly. Cumulative relative effectiveness estimates were calculated and descriptively compared with influenza circulation. The trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05048589. RESULTS: Among 12,477 randomly assigned participants, receiving QIV-HD was associated with lower incidence rates of hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza (10 vs. 33 events, incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.30 [95% CI, 0.14-0.64]; p 0.002) and all-cause hospitalizations (647 vs. 742 events, IRR 0.87 [95% CI, 0.76-0.99]; p 0.032) compared with QIV-SD. Trends favouring QIV-HD were consistently observed over time including in the period before active influenza transmission; i.e. while the first week with a ≥10% influenza test positivity rate was calendar week 10, 2022, the first statistically significant reduction in hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza was already observed by calendar week 3, 2022 (5 vs. 15 events, IRR 0.33 [95% CI, 0.11-0.94]; p 0.037). DISCUSSION: In a post-hoc analysis, QIV-HD was associated with lower incidence rates of hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza and all-cause hospitalizations compared with QIV-SD, with trends evident independent of influenza circulation levels. Our exploratory results correspond to a number needed to treat of 65 (95% CI 35-840) persons vaccinated with QIV-HD compared with QIV-SD to prevent one additional all-cause hospitalization per season. Further research is needed to confirm these hypothesis-generating findings.

RESUMEN

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: SGLT2 inhibitors reduce risk of kidney progression, AKI, and cardiovascular disease, but the mechanisms of benefit are incompletely understood. Bioimpedance spectroscopy can estimate body water and fat mass. One quarter of the EMPA-KIDNEY bioimpedance substudy CKD population had clinically significant levels of bioimpedance-derived "Fluid Overload" at recruitment. Empagliflozin induced a prompt and sustained reduction in "Fluid Overload," irrespective of sex, diabetes, and baseline N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide or eGFR. No significant effect on bioimpedance-derived fat mass was observed. The effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on body water may be one of the contributing mechanisms by which they mediate effects on cardiovascular risk. BACKGROUND: CKD is associated with fluid excess that can be estimated by bioimpedance spectroscopy. We aimed to assess effects of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibition on bioimpedance-derived "Fluid Overload" and adiposity in a CKD population. METHODS: EMPA-KIDNEY was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial of empagliflozin 10 mg once daily in patients with CKD at risk of progression. In a substudy, bioimpedance measurements were added to the main trial procedures at randomization and at 2- and 18-month follow-up visits. The substudy's primary outcome was the study-average difference in absolute "Fluid Overload" (an estimate of excess extracellular water) analyzed using a mixed model repeated measures approach. RESULTS: The 660 substudy participants were broadly representative of the 6609-participant trial population. Substudy mean baseline absolute "Fluid Overload" was 0.4±1.7 L. Compared with placebo, the overall mean absolute "Fluid Overload" difference among those allocated empagliflozin was -0.24 L (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.38 to -0.11), with similar sized differences at 2 and 18 months, and in prespecified subgroups. Total body water differences comprised between-group differences in extracellular water of -0.49 L (95% CI, -0.69 to -0.30, including the -0.24 L "Fluid Overload" difference) and a -0.30 L (95% CI, -0.57 to -0.03) difference in intracellular water. There was no significant effect of empagliflozin on bioimpedance-derived adipose tissue mass (-0.28 kg [95% CI, -1.41 to 0.85]). The between-group difference in weight was -0.7 kg (95% CI, -1.3 to -0.1). CONCLUSIONS: In a broad range of patients with CKD, empagliflozin resulted in a sustained reduction in a bioimpedance-derived estimate of fluid overload, with no statistically significant effect on fat mass. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03594110 ; EuDRACT: 2017-002971-24 ( https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/ ).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Randomised trials are the best method to determine the efficacy and safety of health technologies. A recent report by Lord O'Shaughnessy highlighted many of the current challenges to delivering trials in the UK and proposed potential solutions. Among these, making trials the business of all NHS institutions and a valued part of all doctors' work, while leveraging the potential of the data that the NHS collects routinely, offers an opportunity to improve NHS efficiency, doctors' job satisfaction and population health simultaneously.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction: We aimed to assess opportunities for trial streamlining and the scientific impact of adjudication on kidney and cardiovascular outcomes in CKD. Methods: We analysed the effects of adjudication of ~2100 maintenance kidney replacement therapy (KRT) and ~1300 major atherosclerotic events (MAEs) recorded in SHARP. We first compared outcome classification before versus after adjudication, and then re-ran randomised comparisons using pre-adjudicated follow-up data. Results: For maintenance KRT, adjudication had little impact with only 1% of events being refuted (28/2115). Consequently, randomised comparisons using pre-adjudication reports found almost identical results (pre-adjudication: simvastatin/ezetimibe 1038 vs placebo 1077; risk ratio [RR] 0.95, 95%CI 0.88-1.04; post-adjudicated: 1057 vs 1084; RR=0.97, 95%CI 0.89-1.05). For MAEs, about one-quarter of patient reports were refuted (324/1275 [25%]), and reviewing 3538 other potential vascular events and death reports identified only 194 additional MAEs. Nevertheless, randomised analyses using SHARP's pre-adjudicated data alone found similar results to analyses based on adjudicated outcomes (pre-adjudication: 573 vs 702; RR=0.80, 95%CI 0.72-0.89; adjudicated: 526 vs 619; RR=0.83, 95%CI 0.74- 0.94), and also suggested refuted MAEs were likely to represent atherosclerotic disease (RR for refuted MAEs=0.80, 95%CI 0.65-1.00). Conclusions: These analyses provide three key insights. First, they provide a rationale for nephrology trials not to adjudicate maintenance KRT. Secondly, when an event that mimics an atherosclerotic outcome is not expected to be influenced by the treatment under study (e.g. heart failure), the aim of adjudicating atherosclerotic outcomes should be to remove such events. Lastly, restrictive definitions for the remaining suspected atherosclerotic outcomes may reduce statistical power.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To assess how reliable UK routine data are for ascertaining major bleeding events compared with adjudicated follow-up. METHODS: The ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes) primary prevention trial randomised 15 480 UK people with diabetes to aspirin versus matching placebo. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (including intracranial haemorrhage, sight-threatening eye bleeding, serious gastrointestinal bleeding and other major bleeding (epistaxis, haemoptysis, haematuria, vaginal and other bleeding)) ascertained by direct-participant mail-based follow-up, with >90% of outcomes undergoing adjudication. Nearly all participants were linked to routinely collected hospitalisation and death data (ie, routine data). An algorithm categorised bleeding events from routine data as major/minor. Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement between data sources, and randomised comparisons were re-run using routine data. RESULTS: When adjudicated follow-up and routine data were compared, there was agreement for 318 major bleeding events, with routine data identifying 281 additional-potential events, and not identifying 241 participant-reported events (kappa 0.53, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.57). Repeating ASCEND's randomised comparisons using routine data only found estimated relative and absolute effects of allocation to aspirin versus placebo on major bleeding similar to adjudicated follow-up (adjudicated follow-up: aspirin 314 (4.1%) vs placebo 245 (3.2%); rate ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.52; absolute excess +6.3/5000 person-years (mean SE±2.1); vs routine data: 327 (4.2%) vs 272 (3.5%); RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.41; absolute excess +5.0/5000 (±2.2)). CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of the ASCEND randomised trial found that major bleeding events ascertained via UK routine data sources provided relative and absolute treatment effects similar to adjudicated follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN60635500; NCT00135226.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)