Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 14, 2025

Disruption of Frontal Lobe Neural Synchrony During Cognitive Control by Alcohol Intoxication
Published on: February 6, 2019
Impact of Central Event Adjudication on the PLATO Trial Results
Victor L Serebruany1,2, Wendy Ziai1, Hector A Cabrera-Fuentes3,4
1Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Insights
Central adjudication delays in the PLATelet Inhibition and Clinical Outcomes (PLATO) trial inflated ticagrelor
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Clinical Trials
- Pharmacology
Background:
- The PLATelet Inhibition and Clinical Outcomes (PLATO) trial investigated ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in acute coronary syndromes.
- Central adjudication of clinical events is crucial for trial integrity.
- Preliminary data suggested potential discrepancies between site and central diagnoses in PLATO.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the impact of central adjudication on site-reported events in the PLATO trial.
- To analyze discrepancies between central and site diagnoses.
- To evaluate the influence of adjudication timing and disagreements on trial outcomes.
Main Methods:
- Utilized the FDA-issued adjudication dataset for the PLATO trial.
- Analyzed adjudicated events including death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), bleeding, and thrombotic events.
- Assessed geographical factors, timing of adjudication, disagreements, and primary endpoint composition.
Main Results:
- Over 10,704 central adjudications were performed across 7,171 patients.
- Significant disagreements between site and central adjudication were observed, with mismatches favoring both clopidogrel and ticagrelor.
- Adjudication delays occurred, particularly for events in 2007-2008 finalized in 2009, which correlated with a reduced favorability for ticagrelor.
- Disagreements in the primary endpoint significantly favored ticagrelor, particularly for vascular death and MI.
Conclusions:
- Central adjudication in the PLATO trial was subject to delays.
- These delays potentially inflated the observed benefit of ticagrelor, impacting the drug's approval.
- Recommends regulatory authorities consider independent audits in indication-seeking trials where unblinding is suspected.
Background:
This study aimed to determine the impact of central adjudication of site-reported events in patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with ticagrelor or clopidogrel in addition to aspirin within the frame of indication-seeking The PLATelet Inhibition and Clinical Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Adjudication in randomized outcome-driven trials is supposed to maintain integrity by applying uniform rules for the quality assessment of clinical events. Some preliminary data suggest an imbalance between central and site diagnoses in PLATO. We gained access to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-issued adjudication dataset and analyzed the evidence.
Methods:
Death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/ transient ischemic attack (TIA), bleeding, arterial thrombotic events, and cardiac ischemic events underwent central adjudication. We assessed geography, timing, impact of disagreements, and primary endpoint composition.
Results:
Among 18,624 trial enrollees, 10,704 central adjudications occurred across 7171 patients in 43 countries. There were 938 deaths, 2751 cases of MI, 359 strokes/TIAs, 2680 cardiac events, 130 thrombotic events, and 3782 bleeding events. The match occurred for 5451 events, while mismatches favoring clopidogrel (n = 2535) or ticagrelor (n = 2706) (p = 0.79) were common for major (n = 1797), moderate (n = 942), or minor (n = 735) disagreements. The central decision prevailed in 2945 cases. There was a significant (HR = 0.84; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.75-0.95; p = 0.004) adjudication delay in the 2007-2008 events but finalized in 2009. Ticagrelor was significantly less favored in 2009 than in 2007-2008 (HR = 1.19; 95% CI: 1.05-1.34; p = 0.005). There was a remarkably consistent match for bleeding adjudication (HR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.83-1.25; p = 0.859) between treatment arms. The primary endpoint in the PLATO trial exhibited highly significant disagreement favoring ticagrelor for vascular death (HR = 2.02; 95% CI: 1.1-3.64; p = 0.019); MI (HR = 2.31; 95% CI: 2.79-43.94; p = 0.034); stroke (HR = 1.37; 95% CI: 2.66-63.28; p = 0.036); total events (HR = 2.51; 95% CI: 1.86-3.39; p = 0.01).
Conclusion:
Central adjudication in the PLATO trial was delayed and impacted the primary endpoint by inflating the ticagrelor benefit, resulting in drug approval. The regulatory authorities should consider independent audits when unblinding is suspected in the indication-seeking clinical trials.
Related Concept Videos
The Stanford Prison Experiment
Robbers Cave
Statistical Significance
Milgram's Obedience to Authority
Framing Effects
Significance Testing: Overview

