...
首页> 外文期刊>Thrombosis and Haemostasis: Journal of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis >Do open label blinded outcome studies of novel anticoagulants versus warfarin have equivalent validity to those carried out under double-blind conditions?
【24h】

Do open label blinded outcome studies of novel anticoagulants versus warfarin have equivalent validity to those carried out under double-blind conditions?

机译:新型抗凝剂与华法林的开放标签盲结果研究与在双盲条件下进行的研究是否具有同等效力?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Recent anticoagulants for stroke prevention in AF have been tested in active comparator controlled studies versus warfarin using two designs: double-blind, double-dummy and prospective randomised, open blinded endpoint (PROBE). The former requires elaborate procedures to maintain blinding, while PROBE does not. Outcomes of doubleblind and PROBE designed studies of novel anticoagulants for AF, focusing on warfarin controls, were explored. Major, Phase III warfarincontrolled trials for stroke prevention in AF were identified. Odds ratios (ORs) of key outcomes for active comparators versus VKA and event rates for VKA arms were compared between designs, in context of baseline demographics and inclusion criteria. Identified trials studied five novel anticoagulants in three each of PROBE and doubleblind design. For ORs of results across studies and outcomes, there was little pattern differentiating the two designs. Among VKA-control subjects, event rates for the primary outcome (stroke or systemic embolism) in PROBE trials at 1.74 %/year (95% confidence interval: 1.54-1.95) was not significantly different from that in double-blind trials, at 1.88 (1.73-2.03). Among other outcomes, VKA-treated subjects in both trial designs had similar event rates, apart from higher all-cause mortality in ROCKET AF, and lower myocardial infarction rates among the PROBE study patients. Although there are differences in outcome between PROBE and double blind trials, they do not appear to be design-related. The exacting requirements of double-blinding in AF trials may not be necessary. ? Schattauer 2013.
机译:最近的抗凝剂用于房颤的预防已经在积极的比较对照研究中与华法林进行了比较,并使用两种设计进行了测试:双盲,双假人和前瞻性随机,开放盲点(PROBE)。前者需要复杂的程序来保持盲目性,而PROBE则不需要。探索了针对AF的新型抗凝剂的双盲和PROBE设计的研究结果,重点是华法林控制。确定了用于华氏预防卒中的房颤的大型III期华法林对照试验。在基线人口统计和纳入标准的背景下,比较了不同设计之间主动比较器与VKA的关键结局的赔率(OR)和VKA臂的事件发生率。经过鉴定的试验以PROBE和双盲设计分别研究了五种新型抗凝剂。对于跨研究和结果的结果OR,几乎没有区分两种设计的模式。在VKA对照受试者中,PROBE试验中主要结局(卒中或全身性栓塞)的事件发生率为1.74%/年(95%置信区间:1.54-1.95),与双盲试验的发生率为1.88并无显着差异。 (1.73-2.03)。除其他结局外,在两个试验设计中,接受VKA治疗的受试者的事件发生率相似,除了ROCKET AF的全因死亡率较高,PROBE研究患者的心肌梗塞率较低。尽管PROBE和双盲试验的结果有所不同,但它们似乎与设计无关。房颤试验中双盲的严格要求可能没有必要。 ?沙塔尔2013年。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号