Trial reportClinical trials (London, England)2010
Prospective alpha allocation in the Clarification of Optimal Anticoagulation through Genetics (COAG) trial.
Trial report in Clinical trials (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Randomized, Multi-Center, Double-Blind Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Use of Clinical Plus Genetic Information to Guide Warfarin Therapy Initiation and Improve Anticoagulation Control for Patients
Quantitative Pharmacogenomics of the Anticoagulant Response to Warfarin in Healthy Subjects
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- A pharmacogenetic versus a clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing.The New England journal of medicine · 2013Trial
- Rationale and design of the Clarification of Optimal Anticoagulation through Genetics trial.American heart journal · 2013Trial
- Genetics informatics trial (GIFT) of warfarin to prevent deep vein thrombosis (DVT): rationale and study design.The pharmacogenomics journal · 2012Trial
- Trial
- Type I error control and interim monitoring for co-primary hypotheses involving a subgroup in the Outpatient Treatment with Anti-Coronavirus Immunoglobulin (OTAC) trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2026Article
- A systematic analysis and comparison of warfarin initiation strategies.Pharmacogenetics and genomics · 2016Article
- Adjusting for misclassification in a stratified biomarker clinical trial.Statistics in medicine · 2014Article
- Personalized medicine: is it a pharmacogenetic mirage?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2012Review
- Clinically relevant genetic variations in drug metabolizing enzymes.Current drug metabolism · 2011Review
- Anticoagulant therapy: warfarin sensitivity genotyping closer to clinical practice.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2010Article
- What you should know about the 2008 American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (8th) on antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Clarification of Optimal Anticoagulation through Genetics (COAG) trial is a large, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized trial to determine whether use of a genotype-guided dosing algorithm (using clinical and genetic information) to initiate warfarin treatment will improve anticoagulation status when compared to a dosing algorithm using only clinical information. PURPOSE: This article describes prospective alpha allocation and balanced alpha allocation for the design of the COAG trial.
methodsThe trial involves two possibly heterogeneous populations, which can be distinguished by the difference in warfarin dose as predicted by the two algorithms. A statistical approach is detailed, which allows an overall comparison as well as a comparison of the primary endpoint in the subgroup for which sufficiently different doses are predicted by the two algorithms. Methods of allocating alpha for these analyses are given - a prospective alpha allocation and allocating alpha so that the two analyses have equal power, which we call a 'balanced alpha allocation.'
resultsWe show how to include an analysis of the primary endpoint in a subgroup as a co-primary analysis. Power can be improved by incorporating the correlation between the overall and subgroup analyses in a prospective alpha allocation approach. Balanced alpha allocation for the full cohort and subgroup tests to achieve the same desired power for both of the primary analyses is discussed in detail. LIMITATIONS: In the COAG trial, it is impractical to stratify the randomization on subgroup membership because genetic information may not be available at the time of randomization. If imbalances in the treatment arms in the subgroup are found, they will need to be addressed.
conclusionsThe design of the COAG trial assures that the subgroup in which the largest treatment difference is expected is elevated to a co-primary analysis. Incorporating the correlation between the full cohort and the subgroup analyses provides an improvement in power for the subgroup comparison, and further improvement may be achieved via a balanced alpha allocation approach when the parameters involved in the sample size calculation are reasonably well estimated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.