Just a moment, the page is loading...
Browse ALL STUDIES
Keyword Search
View All Selected
Clear All
Login / Create Account
Login
Create Account
Home
About Us
Privacy Policy
Minimum System Requirements
How To Join
Mission
Data Sponsors
Researchers
How It Works
How to Request Data
Review of Requests
Data Sharing Agreement
Access to Data
Independent Review Panel
Metrics
FAQs
News
Help/Contact Us
The implication of central adjudication of COPD exacerbations by experts for treatment effect estimates and sample size calculation
Proposal
977
Title of Proposed Research
The implication of central adjudication of COPD exacerbations by experts for treatment effect estimates and sample size calculation
Lead Researcher
Milo Puhan
Affiliation
University of ZurichZurich, CH
Funding Source
The cohort study which we used to evaluate the accuracy of COPD exacerbation ascertainment was the prospective ICE COLD ERIC cohort study. This study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant # 3233B0/115216/1), Dutch Asthma Foundation (grant # 3.4.07.045), Stichting Astmabestrijding (grant # SAB 2012/043 and Zurich Lung League (unrestricted grant).
Potential Conflicts of Interest
none
Data Sharing Agreement Date
12 May 2014
Lay Summary
Background to the research:
Accurate ascertainment of clinical endpoints is crucial to minimise endpoint misclassification when estimating effects in observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Non-differential misclassification of endpoints, i.e. misclassification that is independent of treatment assignment or some other exposure generally leads to underestimation of treatment effects and loss of precision.
Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are an increasingly important outcome measure in COPD trials. Usually, exacerbations are assessed by patient self-reports or single physicians' judgements. In contrast to large cardiovascular RCTs where endpoint adjudication committees have become common, COPD exacerbations have rarely been adjudicated centrally by blinded experts.
In a recent study nested within a cohort of Dutch and Swiss COPD patients, we evaluated the accuracy of COPD exacerbation ascertainment through patient self-reports and single expert adjudication against a reference standard of central event adjudication by a committee. The study showed that COPD exacerbations as measured by patient self-reports are only moderately accurate and that accuracy between different single experts differed. We have not published these results yet as they will be incorporated into the paper proposed here.
Our hypothesis is that the use of an expert adjudication committee may reduce sample size requirements and cost. To investigate this hypothesis we need a data set from a large COPD trial such as the Towards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) Trial that contains individual patient data on the number of exacerbations and exposure time for each treatment arm (i.e. exacerbation rates). Thereby, we will be able to quantify the impact of misclassification on treatment effect estimates and precision of these estimates.
How the research will add to medical science or improve patient care: This research will add knowledge regarding the impact of event adjudication by experts in randomised controlled trials and observational studies using COPD exacerbations as outcomes. This will be the first study to quantify the effects of misclassification of exacerbations and the implication for sample size and cost of running trials where the primary outcome of COPD exacerbations is determined with and without an adjudication committee.
The aims and objectives of the research:
The aim of this study is to demonstrate the implications of centrally adjudicated COPD exacerbations by experts on treatment effect estimates and sample size requirements, exemplified by the data of the TORCH study.
How the research will be conducted:
We will adjust the annual exacerbation rates reported in the TORCH trial for outcome misclassification using sensitivities and specificities detected in our exacerbation adjudication study.
The results of this study will be published in a general medical or a specialised medical journals.
Study Data Provided
[{ "PostingID": 416, "Title": "GSK-SCO30003", "Description": "A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled study to investigate the long-term effects of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (SERETIDE® inhaler) 50/500mcg BD, salmeterol 50mcg BD and fluticasone propionate 500mcg BD, all delivered via the DISKUS®/ACCUHALER® inhaler, on mortality and morbidity of subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) over 3 years of treatment
Medicine: fluticasone propionate/salmeterol, Condition: Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive," }]
Statistical Analysis Plan
We have developed statistical methodology to adjust treatment effects for misclassification of count outcomes (number of exacerbations). The approach is based on Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) and iteratively imputes the true number of exacerbations. Based on the true number, the treatment effect and its precision is re-estimated. Our study on event adjudication by experts will be used as input for the misclassification mechanism. There we use a negative binomial regression model to describe the distribution of the patient self-reports as a function of the true number of exacerbations, as assessed by experts. The approach will thus allow to quantify the impact of outcome misclassification on the estimated treatment effects and the associated precision. Furthermore, we will be able to update the misclassification model based on the data from the TORCH study. Finally, we plan to incorporate important patient-level information (smoking status, country of residence, age, sex, baseline FEV) in the analysis.
Publication Citation
Bias away from the null due to miscounted outcomes? A case study on the TORCH trial
Stefanie Muff, Milo A Puhan, Leonhard Held
January 1, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280217694403
© 2024 ideaPoint. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by ideaPoint.
Help
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Help and Resources