Validation of Cardiovascular End Points Ascertainment Leveraging Multisource Electronic Health Records Harmonized Into a Common Data Model in the ADAPTABLE Randomized Clinical Trial

Age and Aspirin Dosing in Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, increasing age is concurrently associated with higher risks of ischemic and bleeding events. The objectives are to determine the impact of aspirin dose on clinical outcomes according to age in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) trial, patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to daily aspirin doses of 81 mg or 325 mg. The primary effectiveness end point was death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke. The primary safety end point was hospitalization for bleeding requiring transfusion. A total of 15 076 participants were randomized to aspirin 81 mg (n=7540) or 325 mg (n=7536) daily (median follow-up: 26.2 months; interquartile range: 19.0-34.9 months). Median age was 67.6 years (interquartile range: 60.7-73.6 years). Among participants aged <65 years (n=5841 [38.7%]), a primary end point occurred in 226 (7.54%) in the 81 mg group, and in 191 (6.80%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.23 [95% CI, 1.01-1.49]). Among participants aged ≥65 years (n=9235 [61.3%]), a primary end point occurred in 364 (7.12%) in the 81 mg group, and in 378 (7.96%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.82-1.10]). The age-dose interaction was not significant (P=0.559). There was no significant interaction between age and the randomized aspirin dose for the secondary effectiveness and the primary safety bleeding end points (P>0.05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Age does not modify the impact of aspirin dosing (81 mg or 325 mg daily) on clinical end points in secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Mellitus: A Subgroup Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Trial

OBJECTIVE

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) must be on the most effective dose of aspirin to mitigate risk of future adverse cardiovascular events.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

ADAPTABLE, an open-label, pragmatic study, randomized patients with stable, chronic ASCVD to 81 mg or 325 mg of daily aspirin. The effects of aspirin dosing was assessed on the primary effectiveness outcome, a composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, and the primary safety outcome of hospitalization for major bleeding. In this prespecified analysis, we used Cox proportional hazards models to compare aspirin dosing in patients with and without DM for the primary effectiveness and safety outcome.

RESULTS

Of 15,076 patients, 5,676 (39%) had DM of whom 2,820 (49.7%) were assigned to 81 mg aspirin and 2,856 (50.3%) to 325 mg aspirin. Patients with versus without DM had higher rates of the composite cardiovascular outcome (9.6% vs. 5.9%; P < 0.001) and bleeding events (0.78% vs. 0.50%; P < 0.001). When comparing 81 mg vs. 325 mg of aspirin, patients with DM had no difference in the primary effectiveness outcome (9.3% vs. 10.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98 [95% CI 0.83-1.16]; P = 0.265) or safety outcome (0.87% vs. 0.69%; subdistribution HR 1.25 [95% CI 0.72-2.16]; P = 0.772).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the inherently higher risk of patients with DM irrespective of aspirin dosing. Our findings suggest that a higher dose of aspirin yields no added clinical benefit, even in a more vulnerable population.

Ascertainment and Statistical Issues for Randomized Trials of Cardiovascular Interventions for Cognitive Impairment and Dementia

There has been considerable progress in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease, reducing the population burden of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Recently, some randomized trials, including the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), have suggested that improvements in cardiovascular risk factors may also slow cognitive decline and reduce the eventual development of dementia. Unfortunately, the randomized trial template that has been used repeatedly to successfully demonstrate reductions in major adverse cardiac events faces several design and analytic obstacles when applied in the context of cognitive decline and dementia. Here, we review these obstacles, motivated by SPRINT and the context of selecting an appropriate cognitive end point for future preventive randomized trials. A few options are available, spanning neuropsychological test scores or composites reflecting specific domains of cognitive function, adjudicated cognitive impairment, or potentially physiological biomarkers. This choice entails considerations around statistical power, modes of ascertainment, the clinical relevance of treatment effects, a myriad of statistical issues (interval censoring, missing data, the competing risk of death, practice effects, etc), as well as ethical considerations around equipoise. Collectively, these considerations indicate that trials aiming to mitigate the cardiovascular contribution to cognitive decline and dementia will generally need to be large, inclusive of a wide age range of older adults, and with multiple years of follow-up.

Effectiveness and Safety of Enteric-Coated vs Uncoated Aspirin in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: A Secondary Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Clinicians recommend enteric-coated aspirin to decrease gastrointestinal bleeding in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease even though studies suggest platelet inhibition is decreased with enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin formulations.

Objective

To assess whether receipt of enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin is associated with effectiveness or safety outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This is a post hoc secondary analysis of ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness), a pragmatic study of 15 076 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease having data in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. Patients were enrolled from April 19, 2016, through June 30, 2020, and randomly assigned to receive high (325 mg) vs low (81 mg) doses of daily aspirin. The present analysis assessed the effectiveness and safety of enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin among those participants who reported aspirin formulation at baseline. Data were analyzed from November 11, 2019, to July 3, 2023.

Intervention

ADAPTABLE participants were regrouped according to aspirin formulation self-reported at baseline, with a median (IQR) follow-up of 26.2 (19.8-35.4) months.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary effectiveness end point was the cumulative incidence of the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause, and the primary safety end point was major bleeding events (hospitalization for a bleeding event with use of a blood product or intracranial hemorrhage). Cumulative incidence at median follow-up for primary effectiveness and primary safety end points was compared between participants taking enteric-coated or uncoated aspirin using unadjusted and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. All analyses were conducted for the intention-to-treat population.

Results

Baseline aspirin formulation used in ADAPTABLE was self-reported for 10 678 participants (median [IQR] age, 68.0 [61.3-73.7] years; 7285 men [68.2%]), of whom 7366 (69.0%) took enteric-coated aspirin and 3312 (31.0%) took uncoated aspirin. No significant difference in effectiveness (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.09; P = .40) or safety (AHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.49-1.37; P = .46) outcomes between the enteric-coated aspirin and uncoated aspirin cohorts was found. Within enteric-coated aspirin and uncoated aspirin, aspirin dose had no association with effectiveness (enteric-coated aspirin AHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.88-1.45 and uncoated aspirin AHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.18; interaction P = .41) or safety (enteric-coated aspirin AHR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.02-5.50 and uncoated aspirin AHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.49-1.64; interaction P = .07).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this post hoc secondary analysis of the ADAPTABLE randomized clinical trial, enteric-coated aspirin was not associated with significantly higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death or with lower bleeding risk compared with uncoated aspirin, regardless of dose, although a reduction in bleeding with enteric-coated aspirin cannot be excluded. More research is needed to confirm whether enteric-coated aspirin formulations or newer formulations will improve outcomes in this population.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697916.

Aspirin Dosing for Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Patients Treated With P2Y12 Inhibitors

Background The ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) was a large, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial that found no difference between high- versus low-dose aspirin for secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Whether concomitant P2Y12 inhibitor therapy modifies the effect of aspirin dose on clinical events remains unclear. Methods and Results Participants in ADAPTABLE were stratified according to baseline use of clopidogrel or prasugrel (P2Y12 group). The primary effectiveness end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and the primary safety end point was major bleeding requiring blood transfusions. We used multivariable Cox regression to compare the relative effectiveness and safety of aspirin dose within P2Y12 and non-P2Y12 groups. Of 13 815 (91.6%) participants with available data, 3051 (22.1%) were receiving clopidogrel (2849 [93.4%]) or prasugrel (203 [6.7%]) at baseline. P2Y12 inhibitor use was associated with higher risk of the primary effectiveness end point (10.86% versus 6.31%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 1.22-1.62]) but was not associated with bleeding (0.95% versus 0.53%; adjusted HR, 1.42 [95% CI, 0.91-2.22]). We found no interaction in the relative effectiveness and safety of high- versus low-dose aspirin by P2Y12 inhibitor use. Overall, dose switching or discontinuation was more common in the high-dose compared with low-dose aspirin group, but the pattern was not modified by P2Y12 inhibitor use. Conclusions In this prespecified analysis of ADAPTABLE, we found that the relative effectiveness and safety of high- versus low-dose aspirin was not modified by baseline P2Y12 inhibitor use. Registration https://www.clinical.trials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02697916.

Reliability of major bleeding events in UK routine data versus clinical trial adjudicated follow-up data

OBJECTIVE

To assess how reliable UK routine data are for ascertaining major bleeding events compared with adjudicated follow-up.

METHODS

The ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes) primary prevention trial randomised 15 480 UK people with diabetes to aspirin versus matching placebo. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (including intracranial haemorrhage, sight-threatening eye bleeding, serious gastrointestinal bleeding and other major bleeding (epistaxis, haemoptysis, haematuria, vaginal and other bleeding)) ascertained by direct-participant mail-based follow-up, with >90% of outcomes undergoing adjudication. Nearly all participants were linked to routinely collected hospitalisation and death data (ie, routine data). An algorithm categorised bleeding events from routine data as major/minor. Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement between data sources, and randomised comparisons were re-run using routine data.

RESULTS

When adjudicated follow-up and routine data were compared, there was agreement for 318 major bleeding events, with routine data identifying 281 additional-potential events, and not identifying 241 participant-reported events (kappa 0.53, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.57). Repeating ASCEND's randomised comparisons using routine data only found estimated relative and absolute effects of allocation to aspirin versus placebo on major bleeding similar to adjudicated follow-up (adjudicated follow-up: aspirin 314 (4.1%) vs placebo 245 (3.2%); rate ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.52; absolute excess +6.3/5000 person-years (mean SE±2.1); vs routine data: 327 (4.2%) vs 272 (3.5%); RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.41; absolute excess +5.0/5000 (±2.2)).

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses of the ASCEND randomised trial found that major bleeding events ascertained via UK routine data sources provided relative and absolute treatment effects similar to adjudicated follow-up.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN60635500; NCT00135226.

Concordance between clinical outcomes in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial and in the electronic health record

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials are the gold standard for generating clinical practice evidence, but follow-up and outcome ascertainment are resource-intensive. Electronic health record (EHR) data from routine care can be a cost-effective means of follow-up, but concordance with trial-ascertained outcomes is less well-studied.

METHODS

We linked EHR and trial data for participants of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), a randomized trial comparing intensive and standard blood pressure targets. Among participants with available EHR data concurrent to trial-ascertained outcomes, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for EHR-recorded cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, using the gold standard of SPRINT-adjudicated outcomes (myocardial infarction (MI)/acute coronary syndrome (ACS), heart failure, stroke, and composite CVD events). We additionally compared the incidence of non-CVD adverse events (hyponatremia, hypernatremia, hypokalemia, hyperkalemia, bradycardia, and hypotension) in trial versus EHR data.

RESULTS

2468 SPRINT participants were included (mean age 68 (SD 9) years; 26% female). EHR data demonstrated ≥80% sensitivity and specificity, and ≥ 99% negative predictive value for MI/ACS, heart failure, stroke, and composite CVD events. Positive predictive value ranged from 26% (95% CI; 16%, 38%) for heart failure to 52% (95% CI; 37%, 67%) for MI/ACS. EHR data uniformly identified more non-CVD adverse events and higher incidence rates compared with trial ascertainment.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support a role for EHR data collection in clinical trials, particularly for capturing laboratory-based adverse events. EHR data may be an efficient source for CVD outcome ascertainment, though there is clear benefit from adjudication to avoid false positives.