Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Unexpected Information About AG-014699

On the basis of the pivotal regadenoson studies,30?and?31 the agreement rate between the 2 modalities was estimated to be 0.78, on the basis of the?dichotomous classification of presence or absence of ischemia. A 0.15 margin corresponded to noninferiority boundaries of 0.63 and 0.93. As such, if the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the primary variable was ��0.63, regadenoson-stress CTP would be determined to be noninferior to SPECT. Negative predictive values were calculated as the number of true-negative selleck inhibitor results divided by the total number of true-negative and false-negative results, whereas positive predictive values were calculated as the number of true-positive results divided by the total number of true-positive and false-positive results. Prevalence was calculated as the number of true-positive results plus false-negative results divided by the total number of subjects. Analysis of negative predictive values, positive predictive values, and prevalence were all conducted post hoc. Sensitivity was calculated as the number of true-positive results divided by the total number of true-positive and false-negative results, and specificity as the number of true-negative results divided by the total number of true-negative and false-positive results using SPECT as the reference standard. A receiver operating characteristic plot (post hoc analysis) was constructed with summed difference Quetiapine score by CTP and presence or absence of ischemia (��2 or 0�C1 reversible defects) by SPECT. The area under the curve and associated LDK378 95% CIs were calculated, and the optimal cutoff point determined according to the maximum sum of sensitivity and specificity. A post hoc analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of regadenoson CTP vs CTA alone (<50% or ��50% and 70% or ��70% stenosis) with SPECT as the reference standard was conducted, the statistical significance of which was tested using an extended McNemar test.32 Diagnostic accuracy was calculated as the number of true-positive results plus true-negative results divided by the total number of subjects. A post hoc summary of diagnostic performance and effective radiation dose by site experience and CT scanner was also done. A post hoc analysis of the inter-rater agreement including 95% CIs between each reader pair for each modality was performed. Inter-rater agreement was calculated as the number of subjects who were classified exactly the same for each category of number of defects divided by the total number of subjects. Of 124 subjects randomized, 110 comprised the efficacy analysis set (Fig.?1). Most subjects were white males (Table?1), and the mean age was 61.6 �� 9.3?years. A total of 39% of subjects had a history of CAD, and other comorbid conditions were commonplace, with the most frequently observed being hypertension and hyperlipidemia (Table?1). The number of subjects at each site is available in Supplementary Table?1. Example images are presented in Figure?2.</div>
Sign In or Register to comment.