Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20693186›Full record

Trial reportClinical trials (London, England)2010

Prospective alpha allocation in the Clarification of Optimal Anticoagulation through Genetics (COAG) trial.

Jungnam Joo, Nancy L Geller, Benjamin French, Stephen E Kimmel, Yves Rosenberg, Jonas H Ellenberg

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00839657 phase3completednot on this map

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

TypeinterventionalSponsorNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)Ran2009 to 2013Enrolled1,015ConditionsStroke, Venous Thrombosis, Atrial Fibrillation, Atrial FlutterArmsGenotype-guided dosing algorithm for warfarin, Clinical-guided dosing algorithm for warfarin
NCT01520402 nacompletednot on this map

Quantitative Pharmacogenomics of the Anticoagulant Response to Warfarin in Healthy Subjects

TypeinterventionalSponsorIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiRan2009 to 2011Enrolled35ConditionsHealthyArmsWarfarin
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Personalized medicine: is it a pharmacogenetic mirage?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2012
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jungnam JooOffice of Biostatistics Research, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. jooj@nhlbi.nih.gov
Nancy L Geller
Benjamin French
Stephen E Kimmel
Yves Rosenberg
Jonas H Ellenberg

Funding

NHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268200800003C
6 · The paper itself

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

GenotypePatient SelectionResearch DesignAlgorithmsAnticoagulantsDrug Dosage CalculationsHumansPharmacogeneticsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStatistics as TopicWarfarinAnticoagulantsWarfarin

Identifiers

PMID20693186
PMCPMC3111931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.