Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Methods for safety and endpoint ascertainment: identification of adverse events through scrutiny of negatively adjudicated events
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Background
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.
Main body
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.
Conclusions
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.
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Title: Methods for safety and endpoint ascertainment: identification of adverse events through scrutiny of negatively adjudicated events
Description:
Abstract
Background
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.
Main body
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.
Conclusions
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.
Related Results
Safety and Efficacy of Atezolizumab in Ovarian Cancer
Safety and Efficacy of Atezolizumab in Ovarian Cancer
Abstract
Introduction
Although the efficacy of PD-L1 blockade has been evaluated in analyses that combine pharmacologically distinct antibodies, the specific efficacy and safety of...
Small Cell Lung Cancer and Tarlatamab: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials
Small Cell Lung Cancer and Tarlatamab: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials
Abstract
Introduction
Tarlatamab is a Delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3) -directed bispecific T-cell engager recently approved for use in patients with advanced small cell lung cancer (SCL...
The Burden of Road Traffic Injuries: A Global Perspective
The Burden of Road Traffic Injuries: A Global Perspective
Introduction Road Traffic Injury (RTI) pose a significant health challenge. It represents the eighth leading cause of death globally, prompting the UN to designate 2011-2020 as...
Pembrolizumab and Sarcoma: A meta-analysis
Pembrolizumab and Sarcoma: A meta-analysis
Abstract
Introduction: Pembrolizumab is a monoclonal antibody that promotes antitumor immunity. This study presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety...
Młodociani sprawcy przestępstw przeciwko mieniu
Młodociani sprawcy przestępstw przeciwko mieniu
The new Polish penal legislation of 1969 introduced special rules of criminal liability of young adult offenders' aged 17-20. In 1972 criminological research was undertaken in orde...
Evaluating Effects of Culture and Language on Safety
Evaluating Effects of Culture and Language on Safety
This paper (SPE 54448) was revised for publication from paper SPE 48891, prepared for the 1998 SPE International Conference and Exhibition held in Beijing, 2–6 November. Original m...
Factors Influencing Patient Safety Management Behaviors in Nursing Students
Factors Influencing Patient Safety Management Behaviors in Nursing Students
The objective of this study is to identify the critical thinking Disposition, problem-solving processes, safety motivation, patient safety management knowledge, attitudes towards p...
How Imputation Can Mitigate Ascertainment Bias
How Imputation Can Mitigate Ascertainment Bias
Abstract
Background Population genetic studies based on genotyped single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are influenced by a non-random selection of the SNPs included in th...

