Evaluating the Generalizability of a Large Streamlined Cardiovascular Trial: Comparing Hospitals and Patients in the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Study Versus the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

Background— The Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Study is large streamlined clinical trial designed to evaluate antiplatelet treatment strategies in a broadly inclusive population of subjects treated with coronary stents. Whether large streamlined trials can successfully include a representative group of study sites and patients has not been formally assessed. Methods and Results— Within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry, we compared characteristics and outcomes of hospitals participating versus not participating in the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Study. We also compared clinical and procedural characteristics of trial subjects undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents to contemporaneous patients within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry. Standardized differences between groups were estimated. Between September 2009 and July 2011, 1.1 million PCIs were performed among 1276 hospitals, of which 309 (24.2%) participated in the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Study. Participating hospitals were larger (468 versus 311 beds), more frequently located in urban settings (61.2% versus 42.6%), and had higher annual PCI volumes (858 versus 378) compared with nonparticipating hospitals, although hospital case mix and procedural outcomes were similar. Compared with CathPCI patients, trial patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents were similar with respect to race, sex, and rates of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and smoking, although they had lower rates of prior cardiovascular disease. Conclusions— Within the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Study, clinical trial sites had similar patient case mix and clinical outcomes as nonparticipating sites. Although trial participants were representative of PCI patients with respect to race, sex and most comorbidities, they had a lower prevalence of chronic cardiovascular disease compared with registry patients. Although a streamlined cardiovascular clinical trial may successfully involve a large number of hospitals and rapidly enroll a diverse population of patients, differences between eligible patients and those actually enrolled remained. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00977938.

[1]  Brian J. McCourt,et al.  A registry-based randomized trial comparing radial and femoral approaches in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the SAFE-PCI for Women (Study of Access Site for Enhancement of PCI for Women) trial. , 2014, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[2]  J. McMurray,et al.  Large streamlined trials in cardiovascular disease. , 2014, European heart journal.

[3]  Paul Heidenreich,et al.  Cardiovascular care facts: a report from the national cardiovascular data registry: 2011. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  David Erlinge,et al.  Thrombus aspiration during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  Ralph B D'Agostino,et al.  The randomized registry trial--the next disruptive technology in clinical research? , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  Mitchell W Krucoff,et al.  Embedding a randomized clinical trial into an ongoing registry infrastructure: unique opportunities for efficiency in design of the Study of Access site For Enhancement of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Women (SAFE-PCI for Women). , 2013, American heart journal.

[7]  D. Kent,et al.  Evidence of Systematic Duplication by New Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Programs , 2013, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[8]  Mike Lauer Commentary: How the debate about comparative effectiveness research should impact the future of clinical trials , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  S. Normand,et al.  Comparative effectiveness research: does one size fit all? , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  J. Messenger,et al.  The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Data Quality Brief: the NCDR Data Quality Program in 2012. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  K. Winters,et al.  Rationale and design of the TAXUS Libertē Post-Approval Study: examination of patients receiving the TAXUS Liberté stent with concomitant prasugrel therapy in routine interventional cardiology practice. , 2012, American heart journal.

[12]  P. Serruys,et al.  Evaluating the 'all-comers' design: a comparison of participants in two 'all-comers' PCI trials with non-participants. , 2011, European heart journal.

[13]  M. Pencina,et al.  Rationale and design of the dual antiplatelet therapy study, a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial to assess the effectiveness and safety of 12 versus 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy in subjects undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with either drug-eluting stent , 2010, American heart journal.

[14]  Bryan R Luce,et al.  Rethinking Randomized Clinical Trials for Comparative Effectiveness Research: The Need for Transformational Change , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  Peter C. Austin,et al.  Using the Standardized Difference to Compare the Prevalence of a Binary Variable Between Two Groups in Observational Research , 2009, Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput..

[16]  M. Hamon,et al.  Coronary Stents and Chronic Anticoagulation , 2009, Circulation.

[17]  G. Guyatt,et al.  The primary and secondary prevention of coronary artery disease: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). , 2008, Chest.

[18]  R. Redberg,et al.  Variations between clinical trial participants and Medicare beneficiaries in evidence used for Medicare national coverage decisions. , 2008, Archives of internal medicine.

[19]  G. Guyatt,et al.  The primary and secondary prevention of coronary artery disease: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). , 2008, Chest.

[20]  F. Van de Werf,et al.  External validity of clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction. , 2007, Archives of internal medicine.

[21]  P. Rothwell,et al.  External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” , 2005, The Lancet.

[22]  Jack V Tu,et al.  Impracticability of informed consent in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  D. Stryer,et al.  Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. , 2003, JAMA.

[24]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Representation of the elderly, women, and minorities in heart failure clinical trials. , 2002, Archives of internal medicine.

[25]  K. Alexander,et al.  Representation of elderly persons and women in published randomized trials of acute coronary syndromes. , 2001, JAMA.

[26]  P S Douglas,et al.  Enrollment of women in cardiovascular clinical trials funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  J. Avorn,et al.  The exclusion of the elderly and women from clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction. , 1992, JAMA.