Retrospective analysis of arterial occlusive events in the PACE trial by an independent adjudication committee

Background The phase 2 PACE (Ponatinib Ph+ ALL and CML Evaluation) trial of ponatinib showed robust long-term benefit in relapsed Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) leukemia; arterial occlusive events (AOEs) occurred in ≥ 25% of patients based on investigator reporting. However, AOE rates vary depending on the definitions and reporting approach used. Methods To better understand clinically relevant AOEs with ponatinib, an independent cardiovascular adjudication committee reviewed 5-year AOE data from the PACE trial according to a charter-defined process and standardized event definitions. Results A total of 449 patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) or Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) received ponatinib (median age 59 y; 47% female; 93% ≥ 2 prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs); median follow-up, 37.3 months). The adjudicated AOE rate (17%) was lower than the non-adjudicated rate (i.e., rate before adjudication; 25%). The only adjudicated AOE in > 2% of patients was peripheral arterial occlusive disease (4%). Exposure-adjusted incidence of newly occurring adjudicated AOEs decreased over time. Patients with multiple baseline cardiovascular risk factors had higher adjudicated AOE rates than those without risk factors. Conclusions This independent adjudication study identified lower AOE rates than previously reported, suggesting earlier overestimation that may inaccurately reflect AOE risk with ponatinib. This trial was registered under ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01207440 on September 23, 2010 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01207440).

Anterior versus posterior entry site for ventriculoperitoneal shunt insertion: a randomized controlled trial by the Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network

OBJECTIVE The primary objective of this trial was to determine if shunt entry site affects the risk of shunt failure. METHODS The authors performed a parallel-design randomized controlled trial with an equal allocation of patients who received shunt placement via the anterior entry site and patients who received shunt placement via the posterior entry site. All patients were children with symptoms or signs of hydrocephalus and ventriculomegaly. Patients were ineligible if they had a prior history of shunt insertion. Patients received a ventriculoperitoneal shunt after randomization; randomization was stratified by surgeon. The primary outcome was shunt failure. The planned minimum follow-up was 18 months. The trial was designed to achieve high power to detect a 10% or greater absolute difference in the shunt failure rate at 1 year. An independent, blinded adjudication committee determined eligibility and the primary outcome. The study was conducted by the Hydrocephalus Clinical Research Network. RESULTS The study randomized 467 pediatric patients at 14 tertiary care pediatric hospitals in North America from April 2015 to January 2019. The adjudication committee, blinded to intervention, excluded 7 patients in each group for not meeting the study inclusion criteria. For the primary analysis, there were 229 patients in the posterior group and 224 patients in the anterior group. The median patient age was 1.3 months, and the most common etiologies of hydrocephalus were postintraventricular hemorrhage secondary to prematurity (32.7%), myelomeningocele (16.8%), and aqueductal stenosis (10.8%). There was no significant difference in the time to shunt failure between the entry sites (log-rank test, stratified by age < 6 months and ≥ 6 months; p = 0.061). The hazard ratio (HR) of a posterior shunt relative to an anterior shunt was calculated using a univariable Cox regression model and was nonsignificant (HR 1.35, 95% CI, 0.98–1.85; p = 0.062). No significant difference was found between entry sites for the surgery duration, number of ventricular catheter passes, ventricular catheter location, and hospital length of stay. There were no significant differences between entry sites for intraoperative complications, postoperative CSF leaks, pseudomeningoceles, shunt infections, skull fractures, postoperative seizures, new-onset epilepsy, or intracranial hemorrhages. CONCLUSIONS This randomized controlled trial comparing the anterior and posterior shunt entry sites has demonstrated no significant difference in the time to shunt failure. Anterior and posterior entry site surgeries were found to have similar outcomes and similar complication rates.

Added Value of a Blinded Outcome Adjudication Committee in an Open-Label Randomized Stroke Trial

Background and Purpose: Blinded outcome assessment in trials with prospective randomized open blinded end point design is challenging. Unblinding can result in misclassified outcomes and biased treatment effect estimates. An outcome adjudication committee assures blinded outcome assessment, but the added value for trials with prospective randomized open blinded end point design and subjective outcomes is unknown. We aimed to assess the degree of misclassification of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores by a central assessor and its impact on treatment effect estimates in a stroke trial with prospective randomized open blinded end point design. Methods: We used data from the MR CLEAN (Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands). The primary outcome was the mRS at 90 days. Standardized, algorithm-based telephone interviews to assess the mRS were conducted from a central location by an experienced research nurse, unaware but not formally blinded to treatment allocation (central assessor). Masked reports of these interviews were adjudicated by a blinded outcome committee. Misclassification was defined as an incorrect classification of the mRS by the central assessor. The effect of endovascular treatment on the mRS was assessed with multivariable ordinal logistic regression. Results: In MR CLEAN, 53/500 (10.6%) of the mRS scores were misclassified. The degree and direction of misclassification did not differ between treatment arms ( P =0.59). Benefit of endovascular treatment was shown on the mRS when scored by the central assessor (adjusted common odds ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.16–2.21]) and the outcome adjudication committee (adjusted common odds ratio, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.21–2.20]). Conclusions: Misclassification by the central assessor was small, randomly distributed over treatment arms, and did not affect treatment effect estimates. This study suggests that the added value of a blinded outcome adjudication committee is limited in a stroke trial with prospective randomized open blinded end point design applying standardized, algorithm-based outcome assessment by a central assessor, who is unaware but not formally blinded to treatment allocation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.isrctn.com ; Unique identifier: ISRCTN10888758.

Contribution of lung ultrasound in diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia in the emergency department: a prospective multicentre study

Lung ultrasound (LUS) can help clinicians make a timely diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).ObjectivesTo assess if LUS can improve diagnosis and antibiotic initiation in emergency department (ED) patients with suspected CAP.DesignA prospective observational study.SettingsFour EDs.ParticipantsThe study included 150 patients older than 18 years with a clinical suspicion of CAP, of which 2 were subsequently excluded (incorrect identification), leaving 148 patients (70 women and 78 men, average age 72±18 years). Exclusion criteria included a life-threatening condition with do-not-resuscitate-order or patient requiring immediate intensive care.InterventionsAfter routine diagnostic procedure (clinical, radiological and laboratory tests), the attending emergency physician established a clinical CAP probability according to a four-level Likert scale (definite, probable, possible and excluded). An LUS was then performed, and another CAP probability was established based on the ultrasound result. An adjudication committee composed of three independent experts established the final CAP probability at hospital discharge.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary objective was to assess concordance rate of CAP diagnostic probabilities between routine diagnosis procedure or LUS and the final probability of the adjudication committee. Secondary objectives were to assess changes in CAP probability induced by LUS, and changes in antibiotic treatment initiation.ResultsOverall, 27% (95% CI 20 to 35) of the routine procedure CAP classifications and 77% (95% CI 71 to 84) of the LUS CAP classifications were concordant with the adjudication committee classifications. Cohen’s kappa coefficients between routine diagnosis procedure and LUS, according to adjudication committee, were 0.07 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.11) and 0.61 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.66), respectively. The modified probabilities for the diagnosis of CAP after LUS resulted in changes in antibiotic prescriptions in 32% (95% CI 25 to 40) of the cases.ConclusionIn our study, LUS was a powerful tool to improve CAP diagnosis in the ED, reducing diagnostic uncertainty from 73% to 14%.Trial registration numberNCT03411824.

Adjudicating mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease as a novel endpoint event in the TOMMORROW prevention clinical trial

Background The onset of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is an essential outcome in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) prevention trials and a compelling milestone for clinically meaningful change. Determining MCI, however, may be variable and subject to disagreement. Adjudication procedures may improve the reliability of these determinations. We report the performance of an adjudication committee for an AD prevention trial. Methods The TOMMORROW prevention trial selected cognitively normal participants at increased genetic risk for AD and randomized them to low-dose pioglitazone or placebo treatment. When adjudication criteria were triggered, a participant’s clinical information was randomly assigned to a three-member panel of a six-member independent adjudication committee. Determination of whether or not a participant reached MCI or AD proceeded through up to three review stages – independent review, collaborative review, and full committee review – requiring a unanimous decision and ratification by the chair. Results Of 3494 participants randomized, the committee adjudicated on 648 cases from 386 participants, resulting in 96 primary endpoint events. Most participants had cases that were adjudicated once (n = 235, 60.9%); the rest had cases that were adjudicated multiple times. Cases were evenly distributed among the eight possible three-member panels. Most adjudicated cases (485/648, 74.8%) were decided within the independent review (stage 1); 14.0% required broader collaborative review (stage 2), and 11.1% needed full committee discussion (stage 3). The primary endpoint event decision rate was 39/485 (8.0%) for stage 1, 29/91 (31.9%) for stage 2, and 28/72 (38.9%) for stage 3. Agreement between the primary event outcomes supported by investigators’ clinical diagnoses and the decisions of the adjudication committee increased from 50% to approximately 93% (after around 100 cases) before settling at 80–90% for the remainder of the study. Conclusions The adjudication process was designed to provide independent, consistent determinations of the trial endpoints. These outcomes demonstrated the extent of uncertainty among trial investigators and agreement between adjudicators when the transition to MCI due to AD was prospectively assessed. These methods may inform clinical endpoint determination in future AD secondary prevention studies. Reliable, accurate assessment of clinical events is critical for prevention trials and may mean the difference between success and failure. Trial registration: NCT01931566

P334 Tofacitinib for the treatment of Ulcerative Colitis: Analysis of malignancy rates from the Ulcerative Colitis clinical programme

Background Tofacitinib is an oral, small molecule JAK inhibitor for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). We present an updated analysis of adjudicated malignancies in the tofacitinib UC clinical programme, including final data from the open-label, long-term extension (OLE) study (as of 24 Aug 2020). Methods Malignancies were evaluated from 3 randomised, placebo-controlled studies (2 Phase [P]3 induction studies [NCT01465763; NCT01458951]; 1 P3 maintenance study [NCT01458574]) and an OLE study (NCT01470612). Three cohorts were analysed: Induction (P3 induction studies), Maintenance (P3 maintenance study) and Overall (patients receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily [BID] in P3 or OLE studies; data from the previous data cut [May 2019] are also reported for comparison). Analysis was by predominant dose (PD) 5 or 10 mg BID, based on average daily dose &lt;15 mg or ≥15 mg, respectively (82.1% of patients received PD 10 mg BID). An independent adjudication committee reviewed potential malignancies. Proportions and incidence rates (IRs; unique patients with events per 100 patient-years of exposure) were evaluated for malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer [NMSC]) and NMSC. Results 1124 patients were evaluated for malignancies (2809.4 patient-years of tofacitinib exposure; up to 7.8 years of treatment; median duration of 685.5 days). No malignancies (excluding NMSC) occurred in Induction Cohort patients. Malignancies (excluding NMSC) occurred in 1 Maintenance Cohort patient (who was receiving placebo) and in 25 Overall Cohort patients (IR 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56, 1.27]: PD tofacitinib 5 mg BID n=5, IR 0.63 [95% CI 0.20, 1.47]; PD tofacitinib 10 mg BID n=20, IR 0.95 [95% CI 0.58, 1.46]); 5 new cases since May 2019 (Table).1 NMSC events in the Induction and Maintenance Cohorts were previously reported (Table).1 NMSC events occurred in 21 Overall Cohort patients (IR 0.73 [95% CI 0.45, 1.12]): PD tofacitinib 5 mg BID n=5, IR 0.63 (95% CI 0.21, 1.48); PD tofacitinib 10 mg BID n=16, IR 0.77 (95% CI 0.44, 1.25); 2 new cases since May 2019 (Table).1 Conclusion There was no apparent clustering of types of malignancy, excluding NMSC. Malignancies (excluding NMSC) and NMSC IRs remained stable over time, being comparable to those previously reported in the tofacitinib UC clinical programme.1 In this analysis, malignancies (excluding NMSC) and NMSC IRs were similar to those in patients with UC treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors, as reported from claims data (IRs of 0.63 and 1.69, respectively).2 References

Exploring the Complexity of Death-Censored Kidney Allograft Failure

BackgroundFew studies have thoroughly investigated the causes of kidney graft loss (GL), despite its importance.MethodsA novel approach assigns each persistent and relevant decline in renal function over the lifetime of a renal allograft to a standardized category, hypothesizing that singular or multiple events finally lead to GL. An adjudication committee of three physicians retrospectively evaluated indication biopsies, laboratory testing, and medical history of all 303 GLs among all 1642 recipients of transplants between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2017 at a large university hospital to assign primary and/or secondary causes of GL.ResultsIn 51.2% of the patients, more than one cause contributed to GL. The most frequent primary or secondary causes leading to graft failure were intercurrent medical events in 36.3% of graft failures followed by T cell–mediated rejection (TCMR) in 34% and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) in 30.7%. In 77.9%, a primary cause could be attributed to GL, of which ABMR was most frequent (21.5%). Many causes for GL were identified, and predominant causes for GL varied over time.ConclusionsGL is often multifactorial and more complex than previously thought.

LUNG ULTRASOUND IN RULING OUT COVID-19 AMONG HEALTHCARE WORKERS IN TWO ITALIAN EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS: A MULTICENTER STUDY.

Purpose: The high percentage of asymptomatic patients and the non-high sensitivity of real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test on nasopharyngeal swab cause some healthcare workers to be infected but asymptomatic and a source of spread of the epidemic. This study aimed to verify if the lung ultrasound (LUS) had enough high negative predictive value to rule out coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among a population of healthcare workers operating in the Emergency Department. Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted, enrolling healthcare workers among the staff of two Emergency Departments in Northeast Italy. The definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 was established by an adjudication committee, based on the clinical data and RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swab result. Results: From March 30, 2020, to April 22, 2020, we enrolled 155 cases. The adjudication committee determined two true positives for COVID-19. Twenty-one healthcare workers presented suggestive symptoms (2 true positives and 19 false positives). The nasopharyngeal swab was positive in one case (1 false-negative case). LUS was suggestive for COVID-19 pneumonia in 4 cases (2 false-positive cases). The diagnostic accuracy of LUS was 98.7% (95% CI 95.4%-99.8%). The sensitivity and the specificity of LUS were 100% (95% CI 15.8% -100%) and 98.7% (95% CI 95.4% - 99.8%), respectively. The negative predictive value was 100% (95% CI 100% -100%). Conclusion: LUS has a good enough negative predictive value for ruling out COVID-19 in a population of healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19.

Abstract P3: Andexanet Alfa for Acute Bleeding During Treatment With Edoxaban

Introduction: We previously reported results of a prospective cohort study evaluating andexanet alfa (andexanet) for anticoagulation reversal in patients with acute bleeding on a factor Xa inhibitor. Study enrollment continued to accumulate additional data on patients on edoxaban, which are presented here. Methods: Patients with acute major bleeding within 18 hours of edoxaban intake were prospectively enrolled. Patients received a 400 or 800 mg bolus and a 480 or 960 mg 2-hour follow-on infusion of andexanet, depending on edoxaban dosage and time of last dose. The co-primary efficacy outcomes were change in anti-factor Xa activity and the rate of excellent or good hemostasis, 12 hours after andexanet treatment, as determined by an independent adjudication committee. Efficacy was analyzed in patients with confirmed major bleeding and baseline anti-factor Xa activity ≥75 ng/mL. Safety was analyzed in all patients. Results: A total of 36 patients (mean age 82 years, 61.1% male and 91.7% with atrial fibrillation) with acute major bleeding on edoxaban received andexanet. The primary site of bleeding was intracranial in 29 (80.6%) patients. In the efficacy population (n=20), median anti-factor Xa activity decreased from 160.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 106.2-222.2) ng/mL at baseline to 50.9 (IQR 19.9-119.4) ng/mL at the end of bolus (median decrease 69.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 25.5-80.2%). Excellent or good hemostasis at 12 hours was achieved in 75.0% (95% CI 50.9-91.3%) of patients overall and in 81.3% (95% CI 54.4-96.0%) of those with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Within 30 days, a total of 4 (11.1%) patients experienced at least one thrombotic event and 4 (11.1%) others died. Conclusions: In patients with acute bleeding on edoxaban, andexanet significantly decreased anti-factor Xa activity. Excellent or good hemostasis at 12 hours was observed in 75.0% of patients overall and 81.3% of those with ICH. Thrombotic events occurred at a rate expected in such patients.