Cargando…

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

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 w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van der Ende, Nadinda A.M., Roozenbeek, Bob, Berkhemer, Olvert A., Koudstaal, Peter J., Boiten, Jelis, van Dijk, Ewoud J., Roos, Yvo B.W.E.M., van Oostenbrugge, Robert J., Majoie, Charles B.L.M., van Zwam, Wim, Lingsma, Hester F., van der Lugt, Aad, Dippel, Diederik W.J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8700318/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34607469
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.035301
_version_ 1784620728129159168
author van der Ende, Nadinda A.M.
Roozenbeek, Bob
Berkhemer, Olvert A.
Koudstaal, Peter J.
Boiten, Jelis
van Dijk, Ewoud J.
Roos, Yvo B.W.E.M.
van Oostenbrugge, Robert J.
Majoie, Charles B.L.M.
van Zwam, Wim
Lingsma, Hester F.
van der Lugt, Aad
Dippel, Diederik W.J.
author_facet van der Ende, Nadinda A.M.
Roozenbeek, Bob
Berkhemer, Olvert A.
Koudstaal, Peter J.
Boiten, Jelis
van Dijk, Ewoud J.
Roos, Yvo B.W.E.M.
van Oostenbrugge, Robert J.
Majoie, Charles B.L.M.
van Zwam, Wim
Lingsma, Hester F.
van der Lugt, Aad
Dippel, Diederik W.J.
author_sort van der Ende, Nadinda A.M.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8700318
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87003182022-01-03 Added Value of a Blinded Outcome Adjudication Committee in an Open-Label Randomized Stroke Trial van der Ende, Nadinda A.M. Roozenbeek, Bob Berkhemer, Olvert A. Koudstaal, Peter J. Boiten, Jelis van Dijk, Ewoud J. Roos, Yvo B.W.E.M. van Oostenbrugge, Robert J. Majoie, Charles B.L.M. van Zwam, Wim Lingsma, Hester F. van der Lugt, Aad Dippel, Diederik W.J. Stroke Original Contributions 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. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2021-10-05 2022-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8700318/ /pubmed/34607469 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.035301 Text en © 2021 The Authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Stroke is published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Contributions
van der Ende, Nadinda A.M.
Roozenbeek, Bob
Berkhemer, Olvert A.
Koudstaal, Peter J.
Boiten, Jelis
van Dijk, Ewoud J.
Roos, Yvo B.W.E.M.
van Oostenbrugge, Robert J.
Majoie, Charles B.L.M.
van Zwam, Wim
Lingsma, Hester F.
van der Lugt, Aad
Dippel, Diederik W.J.
Added Value of a Blinded Outcome Adjudication Committee in an Open-Label Randomized Stroke Trial
title Added Value of a Blinded Outcome Adjudication Committee in an Open-Label Randomized Stroke Trial
title_full Added Value of a Blinded Outcome Adjudication Committee in an Open-Label Randomized Stroke Trial
title_fullStr Added Value of a Blinded Outcome Adjudication Committee in an Open-Label Randomized Stroke Trial
title_full_unstemmed Added Value of a Blinded Outcome Adjudication Committee in an Open-Label Randomized Stroke Trial
title_short Added Value of a Blinded Outcome Adjudication Committee in an Open-Label Randomized Stroke Trial
title_sort added value of a blinded outcome adjudication committee in an open-label randomized stroke trial
topic Original Contributions
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8700318/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34607469
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.035301
work_keys_str_mv AT vanderendenadindaam addedvalueofablindedoutcomeadjudicationcommitteeinanopenlabelrandomizedstroketrial
AT roozenbeekbob addedvalueofablindedoutcomeadjudicationcommitteeinanopenlabelrandomizedstroketrial
AT berkhemerolverta addedvalueofablindedoutcomeadjudicationcommitteeinanopenlabelrandomizedstroketrial
AT koudstaalpeterj addedvalueofablindedoutcomeadjudicationcommitteeinanopenlabelrandomizedstroketrial
AT boitenjelis addedvalueofablindedoutcomeadjudicationcommitteeinanopenlabelrandomizedstroketrial
AT vandijkewoudj addedvalueofablindedoutcomeadjudicationcommitteeinanopenlabelrandomizedstroketrial
AT roosyvobwem addedvalueofablindedoutcomeadjudicationcommitteeinanopenlabelrandomizedstroketrial
AT vanoostenbruggerobertj addedvalueofablindedoutcomeadjudicationcommitteeinanopenlabelrandomizedstroketrial
AT majoiecharlesblm addedvalueofablindedoutcomeadjudicationcommitteeinanopenlabelrandomizedstroketrial
AT vanzwamwim addedvalueofablindedoutcomeadjudicationcommitteeinanopenlabelrandomizedstroketrial
AT lingsmahesterf addedvalueofablindedoutcomeadjudicationcommitteeinanopenlabelrandomizedstroketrial
AT vanderlugtaad addedvalueofablindedoutcomeadjudicationcommitteeinanopenlabelrandomizedstroketrial
AT dippeldiederikwj addedvalueofablindedoutcomeadjudicationcommitteeinanopenlabelrandomizedstroketrial