Prospective Record Of the Use of Dabigatran in Patients With Acute Stroke or TIA
Conditions: Brain Ischemia With Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation, Transient Ischemic Attack With Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation
Sponsor: University Hospital, Essen

 
 
 
page 1 of 59 
Title: PRODAST: Prospective Record Of the use of Dabigatran in patients with Acute Stroke 
or TIA 
 
 
 
NCT No.: NCT02507856 
 
 
 
 
Version: 5.0 
 
 
 
 
Date: September 24th, 2018 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 2 of 59 
 
TITLE PAGE 
 
Non-interventional Post-Authorisation Safety Study 
(PASS) Protocol 
Investigational 
Product(s): 
Pradaxa, vitamin K antagonists, antiplatelet therapy 
Title: 
PRODAST: Prospective Record Of the use of Dabigatran in patients 
with Acute Stroke or TIA 
Chairman of the 
Steering Committee:  
 
 
 
Co-Chairman of the 
Steering Committee: 
 
Prof. Dr. Hans-Christoph Diener  
Department of Neurology, University Hospital Essen 
University Duisburg-Essen, Germany  
http://www.uni-due.de/neurologie/ 
Phone: +49 201/ 723-2460  
Fax: +49 201/ 723-5901 
e-mail: hans.diener@uk-essen.de 
 
Prof. Dr. Christian Weimar 
Department of Neurology, University Hospital Essen 
University Duisburg-Essen, Germany  
Hufelandstr. 55, 45122 Essen 
Phone: +49 201/ 723-6503  
Fax: +49 201/ 723-6948 
e-mail: christian.weimar@uk-essen.de 
Epidemiology 
Prof. Dr. Andreas Stang, MPH 
University Hospital Essen  
Head of the Center of Clinical Epidemiology 
c/o Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and  
Epidemiology (IMIBE)  
Hufelandstr. 55, D-45147 Essen, Germany 
Phone: +49 201 / 92 239-290 
Fax: +49 201 / 92 239-310 
e-mail: andreas.stang@uk-essen.de 
Data management 
and Monitoring 
University Hospital Essen 
Center for Clincial Trials (ZKSE), c/o Institute of Medical 
Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (IMIBE)  
University Duisburg-Essen 
Hufelandstraße 55, D-45122 Essen, Germany  
Phone: +49 201 / 92 239-233 
Fax: +49 201 / 92 239-310 
e-mail: marcus.brinkmann@uk-essen.de 
Status: 
Protocol final version 
Version 
5.0 
Date: September 24th, 2018 
 
 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 3 of 59 
 
SIGNATURES 
The present study protocol was subject to critical review and has been approved in the 
present version by the undersigning persons. 
Protocol Version: 5.0 final 
 
 
Director of Investigation  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date 
 
Signature 
 
 
 
Prof. Dr. med. Hans-Christoph Diener 
 
 
Department of Neurology, University Hospital Essen 
 Scientific Director 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date 
 
Signature 
 
 
Prof. Dr. Christian Weimar 
 
 
Department of Neurology, University Hospital Essen 
Project Manager 
 
 
 
 
 
Date 
 
Signature 
 
 
Marcus Brinkmann 
 
 
Center for Clincial Trials (ZKSE),  
University Hospital Essen 
 
DECLARATION OF INVESTIGATOR 
I herewith certify that I agree to adhere to the observational plan and to all documents 
referenced in the observational plan. 
 
Principal Investigator 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Date 
 
Signature 
 
 
Full name 
 
 
Organization/Department 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 4 of 59 
 
 
 
 
NON-INTERVENTIONAL POST-AUTHORISATION SAFETY STUDY 
(PASS) PROTOCOL SYNOPSIS 
Title of study: 
PRODAST: Prospective Record Of the use of Dabigatran in patients with Acute 
Stroke or TIA  
Study site(s): 
Overall up to about 100 hospitals with a neurological acute stroke unit  
Objectives: 
The main objectives are: 
To collect real-world data on major bleeding events under antithrombotic treatment 
for the early secondary prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial 
fibrillation (AF) who experienced an ischemic stroke or a TIA recently (≤ 1 week).  
 
The primary objective is to assess if the 3-month major bleeding event rate 
following TIA or ischemic stroke in patients with AF is not significantly 
increased with dabigatran administrated early (≤ 7 days) compared with 
dabigatran treatment started after 7 days or with VKA started at any time. In 
addition, occurrences of major bleeding will be compared over time and the 
optimal time point for dabigatran administration will be determined. 
 
To evaluate recurrent stroke rates under treatment with dabigatran, VKA, no 
anticoagulation or no oral antithrombotic treatment at all. 
Further objectives are described in Section 2.1.2 
Methodology: 
Multicenter, prospective, observational, non-interventional, post-authorisation safety 
study for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and ischemic stroke. 
There will be a cross-sectional analysis at the patient’s baseline visit for all patients 
and a follow-up 3 months after baseline for patients who were discharged with 
dabigatran, vitamin K-antagonists, antiplatelets only or no oral antithrombotic 
treatment and the assessment of vital status after 1 year. 
No. of patients:  
Enrolment of approximately 10.000 patients at baseline with follow-up of 6.000 
patients is planned in total. Only patients who were discharged with dabigatran, 
vitamin K-antagonists, antiplatelets only or no oral antithrombotic treatment at all will 
be included in the follow-up of this study. 
Diagnosis: 
Patients with recent (≤ 1 week) ischemic stroke or TIA and confirmed non-valvular 
atrial fibrillation (permanent or paroxysmal). 
Main criteria for 
inclusion: 
Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and recent (≤ 1 week) ischemic stroke or 
TIA, aged 18 years or older. 
Please note: More detailed information on inclusion and exclusion criteria can be 
found in section 3.3. 
Duration of follow up: 3 months for patients who were discharged with dabigatran, vitamin K-antagonists, 
antiplatelets only or no oral antithrombotic treatment at all and the assessment of vital 
status after 1 year. 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 5 of 59 
 
Outcomes:  
Important clinical outcomes / endpoints for the PRODAST study are: 
Primary (Safety) Endpoint:  
 
major bleeding events 
Secondary Endpoints: 
 
stroke (hemorrhagic, ischemic or of uncertain classification) 
 
transient ischemic attack (TIA) 
 
systemic embolism 
 
pulmonary embolism 
 
myocardial infarction 
 
life-threatening bleeding events 
 
all cause of death (non-vascular, vascular or of unknown cause) 
 
point in time and reason for withdrawal/change of medication  
Additional events of interest might be included as outcomes based on new information 
that could become available during the course of the study. 
Other Criteria for 
safety: 
Compliance with oral anticoagulant treatment, Adverse Events (AE) and Serious 
Adverse Events (SAE). 
Statistical methods: 
Descriptive statistics for patient characteristics and treatment patterns, creation of 
study specific propensity scores for type of treatment, time-to-event methodology, 
Cox regression models, risk curves, ROC curves 

 
 
 
page 6 of 59 
FLOW CHART 
 
Fig. 1: Flow Chart according to the non-interventional study protocol of the PRODAST study. 
10.000 patients with confirmed non-valvular atrial fibrillation who experienced a recent ischaemic stroke or TIA ( index event ≤ 1 week) will be enrolled at baseline 
for this study. It is planned to observe 6.000 patients in a period of 3 months who were discharged with dabigatran, vitamin K-antagonists, antiplatelets only or no oral 
antithrombotic treatment at all and the assessment of vital status after 1 year (T4). Patients treated with nOAC other than dabigatran at discharge will not receive any 
follow-up. Data from this observation will be captured by a central follow-up after three months in the University Hospital of Essen. 
or
or
or
or
Patients with 
non-valvular atrial fibrillation
and ischemic stroke or TIA 
(index event) 
Signature of 
informed consent 
within 1 week 
after index event 
(  T0 + 7d)
T0
Index Event
T1
Study Inclusion
T2
Discharge from documenting Hospital
current 
antithrombotic 
treatment 
check
nOAC 
other than 
Dabigatran
Antiplatelets 
only
Dabigatran
no oral 
antithrombotic 
treatment
Vitamin 
K-
Antagonists
Patients will not be 
followed up
T3
Central Follow-up
after 3 months

 
 
 
page 7 of 59 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
TITLE PAGE ............................................................................................................................................ 2 
SIGNATURES .......................................................................................................................................... 3 
DECLARATION OF INVESTIGATOR ......................................................................................................... 3 
NON-INTERVENTIONAL POST-AUTHORISATION SAFETY STUDY (PASS) PROTOCOL SYNOPSIS ............ 4 
FLOW CHART ......................................................................................................................................... 6 
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. 7 
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 9 
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 10 
1.1. 
MEDICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 10 
1.2. 
DRUG PROFILE ................................................................................................................. 10 
1.3. 
PRODAST STUDY.............................................................................................................. 11 
1.4. 
RATIONALE FOR THE PRODAST STUDY ........................................................................... 11 
2. OBJECTIVES AND BENEFIT-RISK ASSESSMENT ....................................................................... 12 
2.1. 
STUDY OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................... 12 
2.1.1. 
Main Objective ............................................................................................................ 12 
2.1.2. 
Further Objectives ....................................................................................................... 12 
2.2. 
BENEFIT RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................. 12 
3. DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN AND STUDY POPULATION ............................................................. 13 
3.1. 
OVERALL DESIGN AND PLAN ........................................................................................... 13 
3.1.1. 
Study feasibility ........................................................................................................... 13 
3.1.2. 
Administrative structure of the study ............................................................................. 14 
3.2. 
DISCUSSION OF STUDY DESIGN, INCLUDING THE CHOICE OF CONTROL GROUP(S) ...... 14 
3.3. 
SELECTION OF POPULATION ........................................................................................... 14 
3.3.1. 
Main diagnosis for study entry (source population) ................................................... 14 
3.3.2. 
Definition of study population .................................................................................... 14 
3.3.3. 
Removal of patients from study.................................................................................. 15 
3.3.4. 
Discontinuation of the study ....................................................................................... 15 
4. TREATMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 16 
4.1. 
PRESCRIBED TREATMENTS TO BE OBSERVED ................................................................. 16 
4.2. 
CONCOMITANT THERAPY, RESTRICTIONS, AND RESCUE TREATMENT ........................... 16 
4.3. 
TREATMENT COMPLIANCE AND COMPLIANCE WITH DABIGATRAN AND VKA SMPC .... 16 
5. INVESTIGATIONAL PLAN ........................................................................................................ 17 
5.1. 
VISIT SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................... 17 
Table 5.1: Schedule of data collection ........................................................................................ 18 
5.2. 
DETAILS OF STUDY PROCEDURES AT SELECTED VISITS ................................................... 19 
5.2.1. 
ASSESSMENTS ............................................................................................................. 19 
6. VARIABLES, DEFINITIONS AND THEIR ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 21 
6.1. 
OUTCOMES ..................................................................................................................... 21 
6.1.1. 
Outcome measures ..................................................................................................... 21 
6.1.2. 
Assessment of outcome measures ............................................................................. 22 
6.2. 
SAFETY AND PHARMACOVIGILANCE ............................................................................... 26 
6.2.1. 
Endpoint(s) of safety ................................................................................................... 26 
6.2.2. 
Assessment of adverse events .................................................................................... 26 
7. STATISTICAL METHODS AND DETERMINATION OF SAMPLE SIZE .......................................... 28 
7.1. 
STATISTICAL DESIGN AND MODEL .................................................................................. 28 
7.2. 
NULL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES ........................................................................... 29 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 8 of 59 
 
7.3. 
CALCULATION OF STATISTICAL POWER .......................................................................... 29 
7.4. 
PLANNED ANALYSES ........................................................................................................ 30 
7.4.1. 
Secondary efficacy analyses ........................................................................................ 31 
7.4.2. 
Potential for bias and confounding ............................................................................. 32 
7.4.3. 
Treatment related analyses ........................................................................................ 33 
7.4.4. 
Safety analyses ............................................................................................................ 34 
7.4.5. 
Continuous Safety Monitoring .................................................................................... 35 
7.4.6. 
Interim analyses .......................................................................................................... 35 
7.5. 
HANDLING OF MISSING DATA ......................................................................................... 35 
7.6. 
RANDOMISATION ............................................................................................................ 35 
8. DATA PROTECTION ................................................................................................................ 36 
9. INFORMED CONSENT, STUDY RECORDS ................................................................................ 39 
9.1. 
STUDY APPROVAL AND INFORMED CONSENT ................................................................ 39 
9.2. 
INSPECTIONS / AUDITS .................................................................................................... 40 
9.3. 
STUDY RECORDS AND REPORTING ................................................................................. 40 
9.3.1. 
Source documents ...................................................................................................... 41 
9.3.2. 
Direct access to source data and documents ............................................................. 41 
9.4. 
DATA MANAGEMENT / CENTRAL MONITORING ............................................................ 41 
9.4.1. 
Storage and archiving of data and study-related documents .................................... 41 
9.5. 
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY ................................................................................. 42 
9.6. 
COMPLETION OF STUDY.................................................................................................. 42 
9.7. 
PUBLICATION POLICY ...................................................................................................... 42 
10. STUDY ADMINISTRATION ....................................................................................................... 43 
10.1. 
STEERING COMMITTEE (SC) AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE (OC) ................................ 43 
10.2. 
CLINICAL ADJUDICATION COMMITTEE (CAC) ................................................................. 43 
11. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 44 
11.1. 
PUBLISHED REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 44 
11.2. 
GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 46 
12. APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 47 
12.1. 
SCORES FOR AF PATIENTS ............................................................................................... 47 
Table 12.1.1: CHADS2 Stroke Risk Score .................................................................................. 47 
Table 12.1.2: CHA2DS2-VASc Stroke Risk Score ........................................................................ 48 
Table 12.1.3: HAS-BLED Bleeding Risk SCORE .......................................................................... 49 
Table 12.1.4: Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) ............................................................................. 50 
Table 12.1.5: National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIH-SS) ........................................... 51 
12.2. 
CREATININE CLEARANCE ................................................................................................. 51 
12.3. 
CONFOUNDERS ............................................................................................................... 52 
12.4. 
DATA PROTECTION .......................................................................................................... 54 
12.5. 
PATIENT INFORMATION AND INFORMED CONSENT ...................................................... 56 
12.5.1. 
Patients who are capable of giving their written informed consent or have a legal 
representative ............................................................................................................................. 57 
12.5.2. 
Patients who are incapable of giving their written informed consent at time of study 
inclusion (T1) and have no legal representative ......................................................................... 57 
12.5.3. 
Patients who die during hospital stay or after discharge ........................................... 58 
12.5.4. 
Withdrawal of informed consent ................................................................................ 59 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 9 of 59 
 
 
ABBREVIATIONS 
AC 
Anticoagulation 
ADR 
Adverse Drug Reaction 
AE 
Adverse Event 
AF 
Atrial Fibrillation 
AMG 
German Medicines Act 
ATC 
Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (Classification System) 
ASS 
Acetylsalicid acid 
BDSG 
German Data Protection Law 
BfArM 
Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices 
BI 
Boehringer Ingelheim 
BID or b.i.d 
lat. bis in die → twice per day 
CAC 
Clinical Adjudication Committee 
CI 
Confidence Interval 
CRA 
Clinical Research Associate 
CRF 
Case Report Form 
DMP 
Data Management Plan 
EC 
Ethics Committee 
ECG 
Electrocardiogram 
EU 
European Union 
GCP 
Good Clinical Practice 
GPV 
Good Pharmacovigilance Practice 
ICU 
Intensive care unit 
IEC 
Independent Ethics Committee 
IMIBE 
Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology  
INR 
International Normalized Ratio 
ISF 
Investigator Site File 
LBBB 
Left Bundle Branch Block 
LV 
Left Ventricular 
MI 
Myocardial Infarction 
NVAF 
Non-valvular atrial fibrillation 
nOAC 
Novel oral anticoagulant 
OC 
Operation Committee 
PASS 
Post-Authorisation Safety Study 
PEI 
Paul-Ehrlich-Institute 
SAE 
Serious Adverse Event 
SC 
Steering Committee 
SEAP 
Statistical and Epidemiological Analysis Plan 
SmPC 
Summary of Product Characteristics 
TIA 
Transient Ischemic Attack 
VKA 
Vitamin K Antagonist 
ZKSE 
Center for Clinical Trials in Essen 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 10 of 59 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1. 
MEDICAL BACKGROUND 
Thromboembolic complications – particularly stroke – are a major cause of morbidity and mortality 
in patients with Atrial Fibrillation (AF). Most cases of stroke in patients with AF are the result of 
embolization of a left atrial thrombus, and particularly from the left atrial appendage. Patients with 
AF have a four to five fold higher risk for stroke than those without AF (31, 8). AF is detected in 
about 20-25% of all ischemic strokes (9) and an even larger percentage of patients with cryptogenic 
stroke are suspected to suffer from paroxysmal AF (26). Recurrent ischemic stroke and systemic 
embolism in AF patients can be effectively prevented by oral anticoagulation with VKAs and 
nOACs (11, 20). 
However, VKAs have important limitations including a narrow therapeutic window, an 
unpredictable dose–response effect, numerous drug-drug and drug-food interactions, and a slow 
onset and offset of action. In a real-world setting, VKA treatment often results in INR values 
outside of the target therapeutic range (6, 13), leaving patients at increased risk of recurrent stroke 
or bleeding. As a result, many stroke patients with AF do not receive any effective oral 
anticoagulation (21, 30).  
To address the many shortcomings of VKAs, several new oral anticoagulants have been developed 
including mainly direct thrombin inhibitors and factor Xa inhibitors. Dabigatran, a direct thrombin 
inhibitor, has recently been approved for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in 
patients with AF in many countries worldwide including the EU. In the RE-LY trial, a 18.113 
randomized clinical patient study, dabigatran (150 mg b.i.d.) has been shown to significantly reduce 
the occurrence of stroke (both ischemic and hemorrhagic) and systemic embolism compared to 
warfarin while having a comparable rate of major bleeding (2). In the same trial dabigatran (110 mg 
b.i.d.) was demonstrated to be non-inferior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke and systemic 
embolism while resulting in statistically significantly fewer major bleeds in the same study. 
Importantly, both doses of dabigatran reduced the occurrence of intracranial hemorrhage in a 
statistically significant manner compared to warfarin. Of note, dabigatran has been taken up as 
adequate treatment alternative to VKAs in major treatment guidelines (e.g. USA, Canada, EU) 
during recent revisions. However, clinical trials cannot exactly simulate a real life scenario. 
Moreover, patients with recent TIA or ischemic stroke were excluded in the clinical trials 
investigating nOACs for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. Although data on 
long-term effects of anticoagulation exist, there are no studies available that examined the long-
term prognosis of stroke patients who underwent early anticoagulation with NOACs as compared to 
late anticoagulation. Long-term survival may differ between early (within first 14 days after 
stroke) and late anticoagulation. As PRODAST provides the unique opportunity to investigate not 
only short-term effects (3 months follow-up) but also long-term effects of early and late 
anticoagulation,  assessment after one year will be performed. With this information overall and 
disease-specific survival will be analyzed. Therefore, natural history data on the relative frequency 
of recurrent ischemic events and bleeding complications under dabigatran in AF patients with 
recent ischemic stroke and TIA are needed.  
With the approval of novel anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with AF, changes in 
antithrombotic treatment patterns will occur. The PRODAST study is designed to collect real-world 
data to assess these changes. 
 
1.2. 
DRUG PROFILE 
Dabigatran etexilate is the orally bioavailable prodrug of dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor. 
The prodrug (dabigatran etexilate) does not have any antithrombin activity. Following oral 
administration, it is rapidly converted via esterases to the active moiety, dabigatran, which is a non-
peptidic, potent, competitive, and reversible inhibitor of thrombin. For further information refer to 
the local approved label. 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 11 of 59 
 
1.3. 
PRODAST STUDY 
The PRODAST study is an observational study focusing on safety assessment and will be 
performed in compliance with legal provisions for non-interventional post authorisation safety 
studies (= nicht-interventionelle Unbedenklichkeitsstudie). It is designed to characterize TIA and 
ischemic stroke patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated in neurological strokes units and 
to describe current patterns of antithrombotic treatments selected at the patient’s hospital stay. 
Patients who were discharged with dabigatran, vitamin K-antagonists, antiplatelets only, or no oral 
antithrombotic treatment at all will be followed for 3 months and information such as change in 
antithrombotic medication since baseline including compliance and occurrence of any outcome or 
adverse events will be captured. In addition, survival up to one year will be assessed to explore the 
long-term effect of anticoagulation started at different points after ischemic stroke. 
 
 
1.4. 
RATIONALE FOR THE PRODAST STUDY 
When evaluating new drugs, the collection of real-world data is important for studying large patient 
numbers that include a broad spectrum of comorbidities and co-medication use with the use of the 
new drug. Observational studies can provide supplementary data compared to data collected in 
randomized clinical trials which generally have stricter inclusion criteria and structured monitoring 
schemes. 
VKAs have been shown to be effective in preventing strokes and systemic embolism in controlled 
clinical trials, but despite this evidence, they are  prescribed to less than 50% of the AF patients for 
whom they are indicated (5, 30). The approval of new antithrombotic agents for the prevention of 
stroke in AF patients is expected to alter the use of existing antithrombotic agents and there is 
consequently a need to understand how stroke or TIA patients with different characteristics are 
treated in the real-world.  
Also, when evaluating the safety and outcome events associated with the use of new drugs, real-
world data are important to accrue larger patient numbers and broader and more heterogeneous 
patient populations with respect to co-morbidities and co-medication use. 
The here described study will provide information on the utilization of nOACs after approval and 
examine the early use and safety of dabigatran given after acute ischemic stroke and TIA. 
 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 12 of 59 
 
2. OBJECTIVES AND BENEFIT-RISK ASSESSMENT 
2.1. 
STUDY OBJECTIVES 
2.1.1. 
Main Objective 
The main objective is to collect real world data on important outcome events after initiation of 
antithrombotic treatments for the secondary prevention of stroke in AF patients. For the PRODAST 
study the following main objectives have been set (please note: a list of primary and secondary 
endpoints can be found in Section 6.1): 
To collect real-world data on major bleeding events under antithrombotic treatment for the early 
secondary prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) who 
experienced an ischemic stroke or a TIA recently (≤ 1 week).  
 The primary objective is to assess if the 3-month major bleeding event rate following TIA or 
ischemic stroke in patients with AF is not significantly increased with dabigatran administrated 
early (≤ 7 days) compared with dabigatran treatment started after 7 days or with VKA started at 
any time.  
 
 In addition, occurrences of major bleeding will be compared over time and the optimal time 
point for dabigatran administration will be determined. 
 
 To evaluate recurrent stroke rates under treatment with dabigatran, VKA, antiplatelets only or 
no oral antithrombotic treatment at all. 
2.1.2. 
Further Objectives 
The following further objectives are: 
 To assess different “real-world” safety and efficacy outcomes (cf. ‘Outcomes’ in synopsis; for a 
detailed definition of all primary and secondary endpoints please check Section 6.1).  
 To investigate the patient characteristics influencing the choice of antithrombotic treatment for 
the secondary prevention of stroke in non-valvular AF patients.  
 To investigate drug utilization (i.e. compliance and persistence) of oral anticoagulant 
treatments. 
 To examine compliance with the dabigatran SmPC and VKA SmPC with regards to indication, 
posology, contraindications and warnings.  
 To explore subgroups with different risk profiles impacting safety and effectiveness of 
dabigatran. 
 To collect real-world data on potential side effects of antithrombotic treatments. 
 To (develop and) validate a risk score for early bleeding complications. 
 To investigate long term effects of anticoagulation after ischemic stroke. 
 
2.2. 
BENEFIT RISK ASSESSMENT 
As in any observational study, patients will be managed according to local medical practice. The 
choice of treatment is solely at the discretion of the participating physicians. This means that there 
are no additional risks to patients by participating in this study. No additional medical procedures 
are required, over and above those that the patient would receive if not enrolled.  
Data from this study will contribute to the scientific knowledge regarding the management of 
cerebrovascular patients with atrial fibrillation. 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 13 of 59 
 
3. DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN AND STUDY POPULATION 
3.1. 
OVERALL DESIGN AND PLAN 
The multi-center, prospective PRODAST study is investigating patients with TIA or ischemic 
stroke and non-valvular AF both with and without previous oral anticoagulation. It consists of a 
baseline visit and a 3 months central follow-up for patients who were discharged with dabigatran, 
vitamin K-antagonists, antiplatelets only, or no oral antithrombotic treatment at all. Thus, data on 
the use of dabigatran and vitamin K antagonists in routine clinical practice will be collected to 
describe how dabigatran is prescribed and used in the population of AF patients with recent 
cerebrovascular events and how these factors influence important outcome and safety events. The 
utilization of dabigatran will be assessed with regards to treatment persistence, compliance, 
proportion of patients discontinuing treatment and reason for discontinuation as well clinical 
endpoints such as major bleeding, stroke or systemic embolism. Due to the fact that patients will be 
treated according to local medical practice it is possible that medication will be changed during the 
observation period. In the follow-up, the study will use data from the first as well as from the 
second prescribed medication. To explore a long-term effect of anticoagulation, survival up to one 
year will be assessed. Only those laboratory parameters will be documented which are collected 
routinely according to medical practice.  
 
 
3.1.1. 
Study feasibility 
The study described in this protocol will collect data in about 100 Stroke Units mainly in Germany, 
each treating minimum  50 stroke patients with AF per year. Each site should thus include at least 
20 AF patients per year . To evaluate the study procedures, the PRODAST study will first start in 
Essen and then be gradually extended to 5 to 20 additional sites (pilot phase). If the implementation 
shows no critical issues, the study will be initiated in all remaining sites in the same way. If there 
are critical issues, changes will be implemented and then rolled out to all other sites. Overall it is 
planned to enroll approximately 10.000 patients over 3 years with a central follow-up after 3 
months including about 6.000 patients. The remaining patients will not be included in the follow-up 
if they are discharged on a treatment with a new oral anticoagulant other than dabigatran (cf. 
Section 3.1 and Fig. 1).  
For all patients who have been included in the PRODAST study, specific characteristics like year of 
birth, sex, time of admission in the hospital (month) will be recorded during baseline in a 
pseudonymized manner. This data will be used for statistical purposes independent of whether the 
patient will be followed up after 3 months or not. 
The central follow-up will be performed at the university hospital of Essen.  
Additional sites may be opened to accelerate or support recruitment. The site staff will be asked to 
provide data regarding site and physician characteristics, including:  
 Number of ischemic stroke and TIA patients during the last 12 months 
 Ability to recruit consecutive patients who meet entry criteria of this study to minimize 
selection bias at the patient level. 
In case of lower than expected recruitment of sites, initiation of additional international sites in 
Austria is planned. 
The start and end of data collection is from June 2015 to June 2021. 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 14 of 59 
 
 
3.1.2. 
Administrative structure of the study 
Steering Committee 
A Steering Committee (SC) will provide scientific leadership for the planning and conduct of all 
phases of the study. It consists of members of all representatives involved in this study. 
For more details regarding the SC please check Section 10.1. 
3.2. 
DISCUSSION OF STUDY DESIGN, INCLUDING THE CHOICE OF CONTROL 
GROUP(S) 
The study includes confirmed non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with recent (≤ 1 week) stroke 
or TIA. The investigational group in this study consists of patients treated with dabigatran 
administered in the earlier period (≤ 7 days) or in the later period (> 7 days), while patients treated 
with VKA form the control group. The control group reflects standard treatment for patients with 
confirmed non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Thus, the design allows for direct comparison of 
treatment risks regarding major bleeding events using time-to-event methodology. Lack of 
exchangeability at baseline will be controlled for by either conventional multiple regression or by 
use of propensity scores (either as a PS-matched or PS-adjusted analysis). Propensity scores are 
superior to conventional multiple regression in terms of controlling for baseline covariates if and 
only if there are few events and a very large number of confounders. Based on the possibility to 
change medication during the observation period, analysis of primary and secondary time-to-event 
endpoints will be done with respect to each patient’s person-time under treatment. 
3.3. 
SELECTION OF POPULATION 
3.3.1. 
Main diagnosis for study entry (source population) 
Patients with recent (≤ 1 week from index) ischemic stroke or TIA and with confirmed non-valvular 
AF (documented by 12 lead ECG, ECG rhythm strip, pacemaker/ICD electrocardiogram, or Holter 
ECG) will be included. 
3.3.2. 
Definition of study population 
Only the following patients should be included in the study: 
1. Age ≥18 years at enrollment 
2. Male or female patient willing and able to provide written informed consent for data 
transmission. For patients who are not legally competent to sign this informed consent for 
data transmission exceptions/special cases are described in chapter 12.5.2.  
3. Patient with ischemic stroke or TIA within the last 7 days. 
4. Patient diagnosed with non-valvular AF. Documentation of AF by 12 lead ECG, ECG 
rhythm strip, monitor print-out, pacemaker/ICD electrocardiogram, Holter ECG (duration of 
AF episode at least 30 seconds) or written physician´s diagnosis prior to index event needed 
for all enrolled patients. 
The following patients will not be entered in the study: 
1. Presence of any mechanical heart valve, or valve disease that is expected to require valve 
replacement intervention (surgical or non-surgical) during the next 3 months. 
2. Current participation in any randomized clinical trial of an experimental drug or device. 
3. Women of childbearing age without anamnestic exclusion of pregnancy or not using an 
effective contraception or nursing mothers. 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 15 of 59 
 
 
The following patients should be entered in the follow-up part of the study:  
1. Patients treated with either dabigatran, VKA, antiplatelets only or no oral antithrombotic 
treatment at all. 
 
The following patients will not be entered in the follow-up part of the study:  
1. In case, it will be determined at baseline or at discharge that patients have been treated in 
deviation from the effective summary of product characteristics (SmPC) for dabigatran 
(Pradaxa), sect. 4.1 (field of application) and/or 4.3 (contraindication), those patients will not be 
included in the follow-up part of the study. 
 
3.3.3. 
Removal of patients from study 
A patient will be withdrawn from the study for the following reasons: 
 A patient or legal representative withdraws consent (Details for data deletion see 12.5). 
 A patient or legal representative disagrees with the declaration of the responsible medical 
investigator.  
 The patient was erroneously included in the study (e.g. no AF). 
 
 
3.3.4. 
Discontinuation of the study 
The Director of Investigation reserves the right to discontinue the study overall (cf. Section 3.1) or 
at a particular study site at any time for the following reasons: 
1. Failure to meet expected enrolment goals overall or at a particular study site, 
 
2. Emergence of any efficacy/safety information that could significantly affect continuation of the 
study or any other administrative reasons, 
 
3. Violation of GCP, the protocol, or the contract by a study site or investigator, disturbing the 
appropriate conduct of the study at this site. 
 
 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 16 of 59 
 
4. TREATMENTS 
4.1. 
PRESCRIBED TREATMENTS TO BE OBSERVED 
In this observational (i.e. non-interventional) study no specific treatment is mandated and no 
treatment will be withheld from patients. The choice of antithrombotic agent and dosing should be 
performed according to local clinical practice and the SmPC and is at the discretion of the treating 
physician.  
 
4.2. 
CONCOMITANT THERAPY, RESTRICTIONS, AND RESCUE TREATMENT 
All concomitant medications are prescribed based on the underlying medical condition and upon 
the discretion of the treating physician. 
 
4.3. 
TREATMENT COMPLIANCE AND COMPLIANCE WITH DABIGATRAN AND 
VKA SMPC 
Compliance with antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention is evaluated at FU-Visit and will be 
assessed by derivation of the following variable on a patient-level: 
 Proportion of days with compliant medication intake (based on reference period as specified in 
the CRF before planned follow-up visit, subjective measure: how many days during the past 
week have you not taken your medication as prescribed?) 
 
Compliance with the SmPC of dabigatran and VKA will be evaluated by analysing different patient 
characteristics such as age, weight, hepatic disease, renal function, further stroke and bleeding risk 
factors and concomitant medications in relation to the prescription of dabigatran and VKA 
(including dose selection). 
 
 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 17 of 59 
 
5. INVESTIGATIONAL PLAN 
5.1. 
VISIT SCHEDULE 
Recommended timing of assessments is presented in the Flow Chart of the observational period of 
this study (cf. Fig. 1) and summarized in Table 5.1.  
The follow-up assessments are intended to be performed via telephone, under exceptional 
circumstances the family doctor/treating physician may answer a written questionnaire. The 
information given by telephone interview or written questionnaire should be entered by the 
interviewer as soon as possible into the eCRF after contact with the patient and/or family 
doctor/treating physician.  
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 18 of 59 
 
Table 5.1: Schedule of data collection 
Data points  
 T0 index 
event 
T1 study 
inclusion 
T2 discharge from 
documenting hospital 
T3 3 months from T1 (± 2 weeks) with 
central follow-up (interview4) 
  
All patients 
Patients discharged with either 
dabigatran, VKA, antiplatelets 
only or no oral antithrombotic 
treatment at all 
Data points  
 T0 index 
event 
T1 study 
inclusion 
T2 discharge from 
documenting hospital 
T3 3 months from T1 (± 2 weeks) 
with central follow-up (interview4) 
Data collection 
patient file 
entry in study database (also retrospective)  
Informed consent 
 
X 
 
 
Selection of patients 
 
X 
 
 
Demographics and 
Lifestyle factors 
X 
 
 
 
Index event  and 
neurological defects 
X 
 
X 
 
AF disease 
characteristics 
X 
 
 
 
Medical history and 
Concomitant diseases 
X 
 
 
 
Vital parameters 
 
 
 
X 
 
Lab parameters1 
 
X 
X 
 
Antithrombotic 
treatment  
X 
X 
X 
X 
 
Treatment compliance 
for antithrombotic 
treatment  
 
 
X 
X  
(Patient interview only) 
Concomitant treatment  
 
 
X 
X (only for patients with SAE or 
Outcome events) 
Outcome events 
(vascular and bleeding 
events)2 
  
X 
(startin
g at T0) 
X 
X 
 
Complications 
 
X 
(startin
g at T0) 
 
 
Serious adverse events3 
 
 
X 
X 
 
Non-serious adverse 
events 
 
 
X 
X 
 
Vital status 
 
 
X 
X 
(and 1 year after T1)  
1. 
INR, serum creatinine, platelet count, bilirubin GOT, GPT (if routinely collected according to medical practice) 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 19 of 59 
 
2. 
Includes outcome events defined  in Section 6. Specific data of any outcome event has to be recorded in Section 6 
“Endpoints” of the eCRF. 
3. 
Serious adverse events (SAEs) irrespective of causal relationship with dabigatran or VKA or antiplatelets are to be 
recorded on SAE forms. Every SAE must be submitted within 24 h after becoming known to the Safety department of the 
University Hospital of Essen. 
4. 
With patient/physician (for details see 5.2.1)  
5.2. 
DETAILS OF STUDY PROCEDURES AT SELECTED VISITS 
5.2.1. 
ASSESSMENTS 
The following data will be collected for all patients for the purpose of cross-sectional analyses. A 
central follow-up interview (orally or written) and the assessment of vital status after 1 year will be 
done in patients who were discharged with dabigatran, vitamin K-antagonists, antiplatelets only or 
no oral antithrombotic treatment at all. The baseline visit is defined as the physical visit when the 
informed consent is signed. During the baseline visit, data for the index-event (T0), and the 
hospitalization-time since signature of the informed consent (T1) will be collected. Time span 
between index-event (T0) and signature of the informed consent (T1) must not exceed 7 days 
(≤T0+7). The documentation in the eCRF can start only after the patient or the legal representative 
has signed the informed consent or the physician has assessed incapability.  
Assessments at baseline after study inclusion (T0/T1): 
 Date of hospitalization 
 Informed consent and assessment if the patient is capable to give the informed consent 
 Criteria determining if patients should be included in this study or not (check Section 3.3.2) 
 Demographic data, including: birthday, gender, weight, height 
 Date of cerebrovascular event 
 Duration of neurological deficits (<1h, 1-24h, >24h) 
 National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIH-SS; rf. Table 12.1.5) 
 Type and date of cerebral imaging 
 Premorbid Modified Rankin Scale 
 Information regarding AF 
 
Type (paroxysmal, persistent, permanent) 
 Date of diagnosis of non-valvular AF 
 Previous cardioversion, ablation, pacemaker implantation, left atrial appendage 
occlusion and/or left atrial procedures 
 INR, serum creatinine, platelet count, bilirubin, GOT, GPT (if routinely collected according to 
medical practice) 
 History of antithrombotic treatment and stroke history  
 Any antithrombotic treatment selected for secondary stroke prevention after index event 
including start and stop date.  
 Medical history including current concomitant diseases  
 complications during hospitalization  
 Outcome events after index event as listed in Section 6.1 
 
Assessments at discharge (T2): 
 Date of discharge, kind of discharge (e.g. home, rehabilitation clinic, nursing home) 
 Antithrombotic treatment (total daily dose, current, any change (start and stop dates), including 
compliance, reason for onset and change) 
 Therapeutic/diagnostic interventions including interruptions of antithrombotic treatment  
 Latest brain-imaging showing infarct-size of index-event (volume, site)  
 Modified Rankin Scale 
 Outcome events starting at study entry after index event as listed in Section 6.1. 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 20 of 59 
 
 All (serious) adverse events after study inclusion (T1) judged as related or unrelated to 
dabigatran or VKA  
 Vital status and in case of death, details for the cause of death 
 Concomitant treatments (according to the medical report) 
 Vital parameters 
 INR, serum creatinine, bilirubin, platelet count, GOT, GPT (if routinely collected according to 
medical practice) 
 
 
Assessments at the central follow-up interview (T3): 
The follow-up will be performed centrally at the university hospital of Essen. A central follow-up is 
chosen to avoid loss to follow-up as much as possible and to reduce selection bias. 
At first, an interview with the patient will be performed in order to detect any possible outcome 
events or SAEs which subsequently need to be validated with the family doctor or treating 
physician. 
If the patient is not able to participate in the follow-up interview, the interview will be done either 
with close family members, the legal representative or nursing staff, if possible.  
Questions (via telephone) to the patient, if possible, or to the legal representative, close family 
members or nursing staff: 
 Antithrombotic treatment (current, any change (start and stop dates) including compliance, 
reason for change; including interruptions of antithrombotic treatment due to 
therapeutic/diagnostic interventions) including treatment compliance and bridging strategies 
 Catheter ablation procedures or cardioversions 
 Outcome events as listed in Section 6.1. 
 All serious adverse events  
 Pregnancy 
 Selected concomitant treatment (current, any change) only for patients with outcome events 
and/or SAE to only assess the relationship 
 
 Non-serious adverse events, vital status or cause of death 
 INR-values according to the written documentation in patients taking VKA. The INR levels 
after 1 month of initiation of VKA will be used to define the quality of anticoagulation control. 
INRs during temporary or permanent discontinuation will be excluded. 
A complete follow-up interview should be conducted even if the patient discontinues treatment 
with dabigatran/VKA or switches to another antithrombotic treatment. If a patient prematurely 
discontinues from the study, the following information should be collected at the time of study 
discontinuation if possible: 
For early discontinuation: 
 Date of study discontinuation 
 Reason for study discontinuation 
 Vital status 
In a second step, the family doctor/treating physician should be contacted by telephone or in writing 
and be asked to confirm the occurrence and causal relationship of all outcome events and SAE, if 
he/she has detected additional outcome events, additional hospitalisations and further SAEs. If the 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 21 of 59 
 
information about antithrombotic treatment by the patient is insufficient, detailed information will 
be collected from the family doctor/treating physician. Every outcome event or SAE which was 
reported by the family doctor/treating physician will be documented in the central follow-up unit. 
The family doctor/treating physician will also be asked for confirmation and relevant diagnostic 
findings. If no follow-up information by the patient/ legal representative /nurse or family 
doctor/treating physician can be obtained, even after repeated contact approaches, the local citizen 
registry will be contacted and queried about the vital status and current address of the patient. 
 Survival one year after study inclusion (T4) 
The assessment of vital status will be performed centrally at the university hospital of  Essen by 
queries to the local citizen registry. In a first step, the vital status of study participants will be 
requested from the local citizen registry. For patients who have died, in a second step, information 
on the cause of death will be collected from the family doctor or treating physician. In cases, where 
information on cause of death cannot be gained otherwise, civil registry offices and local health 
offices will be contacted in order to permit access to death certificates. The assessment after one 
year will not be performed if consent for study inclusion was exclusively given by the investigator, 
if death was already documented, or consent for participation in follow-up was withdrawn.  
All patients lost to follow up will be characterized compared to the remaining patients and reason 
and time point of loss to follow up will be evaluated (cf. Section 7.4). 
 
6. VARIABLES, DEFINITIONS AND THEIR ASSESSMENT 
6.1. 
OUTCOMES 
6.1.1. 
Outcome measures 
Baseline characteristics including the antithrombotic treatment selected at the baseline visit will be 
captured.  
During the follow-up of patients initially treated with dabigatran, vitamin K-antagonists or no oral 
anticoagulation, all antithrombotic treatments for the prevention of strokes and systemic embolism 
will be recorded. In addition, compliance at discharge with the dabigatran and VKA SmPC with 
regards to indication, posology, contraindications and warnings will be evaluated (cf. Section 4.3 
for more information).  
Recording of outcome events starts at index event (T0) and ends after 3 months. Participation of 
patients ends with the telephone interview 3 months after inclusion. Vital status will be assessed 
after 1 year by a query to the local citizen registry. In case of death, the cause of death will be 
assessed from an interview (orally or written) with the family doctor/ treating physician. Only in 
cases, where this information cannot be obtained, civil registry offices and local health offices will 
be contacted in order to permit access to death certificates. 
 
Primary (Safety) Endpoint 
The primary (safety) endpoint for the primary hypothesis is the major bleeding event rate within 3 
months following the index event. 
Secondary Endpoints 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 22 of 59 
 
The endpoint for the secondary hypothesis is the rate of recurrent stroke (hemorrhagic, ischemic, 
uncertain classification) within 3 months following the index event. 
The following events are also considered important clinical outcomes (definitions are provided in 
Section 6.1.2). Additional events of interest might be included based on new information that could 
become available during the course of the study and based on results obtained by the described 
main analysis: 
 Stroke (hemorrhagic, ischemic, uncertain classification) 
 Transient ischemic attack (TIA) 
 Systemic embolism 
 Pulmonary embolism 
 Myocardial infarction 
 Life-threatening bleeding events  
 Gastrointestinal bleeding events 
 Any cause of death 
 Non-vascular death 
 Vascular death 
 Death of unknown cause 
 Point of time and reasons for withdrawal/change of medication 
 Patient compliance and treatment persistence 
 Complications during hospitalisation before study inclusion (= signature of informed consent) 
 AE and SAE 
In addition, the following composite endpoint will be analyzed: 
 
Stroke or 
 
systemic embolism or  
 
life-threatening bleeding events or  
 
death from any cause 
 
 
6.1.2. 
Assessment of outcome measures 
Patient Compliance  
Detailed information regarding “Patient compliance” can be found in Section 4.3. 
Treatment persistence 
Treatment persistence will be assessed as time until permanent discontinuation of the treatment 
(start and end date). This information will be collected at discharge and during central follow-up by 
the University Hospital Essen. If the patient is insecure about the end date of the treatment / 
persistence, the University Hospital of Essen will contact the family doctor / treating physician to 
clarify this point.  
Investigator Compliance with the SmPC (including dabigatran and VKA)  
Compliance with the SmPC will be captured by collecting the appropriate variables, such as renal 
and liver function (e.g. by analyzing the Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR) using the Creatinine 
Clearance; check also Section 12.2 “Chronic Kidney Disease”), stroke and bleeding risk factors, 
selected concomitant medications and diseases at discharge. 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 23 of 59 
 
 Compliance with SmPC Indications: All patients included in the study are non-valvular atrial 
fibrillation (NVAF) patients at risk for stroke. The AF diagnosis and all risk factors for stroke 
will be collected at baseline, so that compliance with the SmPC indication can be analysed.  
 Compliance with SmPC Contraindications: To investigate if any contraindication is present, 
such as severe renal or hepatic impairment, impairment of hemostasis and contraindicated 
concomitant medications, the respective variables will be recorded at baseline. 
 Compliance with SmPC Posology: All factors relevant for dose selection, such as age, 
concomitant drugs and renal function (by computing the creatinine clearance based on collected 
serum creatinine, if a blood test was performed) will be analysed. 
Compliance with SmPC Warnings: The treatment will be recorded at the follow-up visit including 
interruptions for outcome events (including major bleeds), procedures and other events which 
necessitate treatment interruptions (e.g. major trauma). If known by the investigator, also 
information on bridging strategies will be collected. 
The following definitions apply and should be used as a guide when reporting a thrombotic event: 
Newly occurring stroke: 
Stroke is an acute onset of a focal neurological deficit of presumed vascular origin lasting for 24 
hours or more or resulting in death. Stroke is also diagnosed if an acute infarction can be shown on 
cerebral imaging independently of duration of neurological symptoms. The stroke is categorized as 
ischemic or hemorrhagic (based on CT or MR scanning or autopsy) or uncertain origin. Fatal stroke 
is defined as death from any cause within 30 days of stroke. Severity of stroke will be assessed by 
modified Rankin scale (see Table 12.1.4) at discharge from hospital and/or at follow-up. 
Furthermore new and old strokes will be diagnosed by CT/MRT scanning. 
Newly occurring Transient ischemic attack (TIA): 
TIA is defined as a transient episode of neurological dysfunction lasting <24h caused by focal 
brain, spinal cord, or retinal ischemia without acute infarction (3). 
Systemic embolism: 
Systemic embolism is defined as an acute vascular occlusion of the extremities or any organ 
(kidneys, mesenteric arteries, spleen, retina or grafts), typically documented by angiography, 
surgery, scintigraphy, or autopsy. 
Pulmonary embolism: 
The criteria for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism were a new intraluminal filling defect on spiral 
CT or pulmonary angiography, a cutoff of a vessel of more than 2.5 mm in diameter on pulmonary 
angiography, a new perfusion defect of at least 75% of a segment with corresponding normal 
ventilation (high probability), a new non–high-probability perfusion defect associated with deep-
veinthrombosis, as documented by ultrasonography or venography. Fatal pulmonary embolism was 
based on objective diagnostic testing, autopsy, or death which could not be attributed to a 
documented cause and for which pulmonary embolism could not be ruled out (unexplained death). 
 
Myocardial infarction (MI) (29): 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 24 of 59 
 
The term acute myocardial infarction (MI) should be used when there is evidence of myocardial 
necrosis in a clinical setting consistent with acute myocardial ischemia. Under these conditions any 
one of the following criteria meets the diagnosis for MI: 
 
Detection of a rise and/or fall of cardiac biomarker values [preferably cardiac troponin 
(cTn)] with at least one value above the 99th percentile upper reference limit (URL) and 
with at least one of the following: 
o 
Symptoms of myocardial ischemia. 
o 
New or presumed new significant ST-segment–T wave (ST–T) changes or new left 
bundle branch block (LBBB). 
o 
Development of pathological Q waves in the ECG. 
o 
Imaging evidence of new loss of viable myocardium or new regional wall motion 
abnormality. 
o 
Identification of an intracoronary thrombus by angiography or autopsy. 
 
Cardiac death with symptoms suggestive of myocardial ischemia and presumed new 
ischemic ECG changes or new LBBB, but death occurred before cardiac biomarkers were 
obtained, or before cardiac biomarker values would be increased. 
 
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) related MI is arbitrarily defined by elevation of 
cTn values (>5 x 99th percentile URL) in patients with normal baseline values (≤99th 
percentile URL) or a rise of cTn values >20% if the baseline values are elevated and are 
stable or falling. In addition, either (i) symptoms suggestive of myocardial ischemia or (ii) 
new ischemic ECG changes or (iii) angiographic findings consistent with a procedural 
complication or (iv) imaging demonstration of new loss of viable myocardium or new 
regional wall motion abnormality are required. 
 
Stent thrombosis associated with MI when detected by coronary angiography or autopsy in 
the setting of myocardial ischemia and with a rise and/or fall of cardiac biomarker values 
with at least one value above the 99th percentile URL. 
 
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) related MI is arbitrarily defined by elevation of 
cardiac biomarker values (>10 X 99th percentile URL) in patients with normal baseline cTn 
values (≤99th percentile URL). In addition, either (i) new pathological Q waves or new 
LBBB, or (ii) angiographic documented new graft or new native coronary artery occlusion, 
or (iii) imaging evidence of new loss of viable myocardium or new regional wall motion 
abnormality. 
 
Criteria for prior myocardial infarction 
 
Any one of the following criteria meets the diagnosis for prior MI: 
 
Pathological Q waves with or without symptoms in the absence of non-ischemic causes. 
 
Imaging evidence of a region of loss of viable myocardium that is thinned and fails to 
contract, in the absence of a non-ischemic cause. 
 
Pathological findings of a prior MI. 
 
Major bleeding, defined as meeting one or more of the following criteria (25, 15, 35): 
Major bleeding is defined as a bleeding event that meets at least one of the following criteria:  
- fatal bleeding  
- critical bleeding (intracranial, intraocular, intraspinal, pericardial, retroperitoneal, intraarticular 
or intramuscular with compartment syndrome)  
- clinically overt bleeding associated with a decrease in the haemoglobin level of more than 2 
g/dL (20 g/l; 1.24 mmol/L) compared with the pre-treatment level  

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 25 of 59 
 
- clinically overt bleeding leading to transfusion of two or more units of whole blood or packed 
cells  
- clinically overt bleeding that necessitates surgical intervention.  
 
The description of the severity (i.e.: life threatening versus non-life threatening major bleed), 
localisation (i.e.: intracranial, gastrointestinal, etc.) and temporal pattern (i.e.: time-to-event 
analysis) is encouraged. 
 
Gastrointestinal Bleedings: 
The following criteria refer to gastrointestinal bleedings and should be reported if the severity of the 
bleeding has been assessed as major by the investigator: 
- 
vomit containing frank blood or coffee ground material which tests positive for blood 
- 
Endoscopically confirmed bleeding 
- Frank blood per rectum or melena stools  
(Exception: Bleedings caused by haemorrhoids must not be reported) 
Life-threatening bleedings 
In order to describe bleeding severity, major bleedings may be further sub-classified as life 
threatening if they meet at least one of the following criteria:  
 Fatal, symptomatic intracranial bleed (see below);  
 Reduction in haemoglobin of at least 5 g/dL;  
 Transfusion of at least 4 units of blood or packed cells;  
 Associated with substantial hypotension requiring the use of intravenous inotropic agents; 
or  
 Necessitating surgical intervention.  
 All the remaining major bleeds may be considered as non-life threatening major bleeds. 
 
Symptomatic intracranial bleeding 
 
 New intracranial bleeding as evidenced on CCT or MRI with worsening of neurological 
symptoms 
 Major intracranial bleedings (haemorrhagic stroke/intracerebral haemorrhage, subdural or 
epidural haematoma/haemorrhage, or subarachnoid haemorrhage) comprise an important 
part of all major bleedings reported in this indication, and are associated to a higher risk of 
death or disability than major extracranial bleedings. Therefore, major bleedings should also 
be described by localisation (e.g.: intracranial and extra-cranial, separately) and outcome 
(e.g.: resulting in death; resulting in disability; recovered without sequels). 
 
Previous major bleedings: 
All major bleedings a patient experienced before the index event (ischemic stroke or TIA) have to 
be recorded in the patient file. Here again a description of the severity, localisation and temporal 
pattern should be enquired. 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 26 of 59 
 
 
Deaths 
 will be classified as being: vascular (including bleeding); non-vascular, due to other specified 
causes (e.g., malignancy), or unknown cause, when cause is not known.  
 
All strokes and major bleeding events will be adjudicated blinded by an independent Clinical 
Adjudication Committee (CAC). The CAC will consist of 2 Neurologists, 1 Cardiologist and          
1 Neuroradiologist who will be, depending on the endpoint, selected for adjudication as needed. For 
this procedure the CAC members will receive anonymized data from the CRF and relevant source 
documents from the patient’s medical record (cf. Section 10.2). 
 
Complications during hospitalization 
Every complication (like pneumonia, fall, catheter induced inflammatory reaction) or other 
unfavourable signs –independent from the causal relationship with AF, stroke or TIA will 
be reported. 
 
Any complication occurring before date of study entry (=time of informed consent) will be reported 
retrospectively in the eCRF including severity assessment (slight, moderate, strong, life-
threatening).  
 
Any complication occurring at study entry or later will be reported as an adverse event including 
severity assessment.  
 
 
Further Confounders 
Additional definitions of important confounders can be found in Section 12.3. 
 
6.2. 
SAFETY AND PHARMACOVIGILANCE 
6.2.1. 
Endpoint(s) of safety 
Please refer to safety related outcome events as described in Section 6.1. 
6.2.2. 
Assessment of adverse events 
6.2.2.1. 
Definitions of adverse events 
Adverse Event (AE): 
An adverse event (“AE”) shall mean any untoward medical occurrence, including an exacerbation 
of a pre-existing condition, in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered a 
pharmaceutical product. The medical occurrence does not necessarily have a causal relationship 
with the treatment. An adverse event (AE) is defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a 
patient or clinical investigation subject administered a pharmaceutical product and which does not 
necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment. An adverse event can therefore be any 
unfavourable and unintended sign (including an abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease 
temporally associated with the use of a medicinal (investigational) product, whether or not related 
to the medicinal (investigational) product (Guideline on good Pharmacovigilance practice, Annex I 
Definitions) including an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition, during the PASS. 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 27 of 59 
 
Any AE which occurred prior to the date of study entry (=Date of informed consent) will be 
reported retrospectively as complication. If the patient is incapable to consent, the date of consent 
will be assumed 7 days after index event at the latest. Only after study entry it is allowed to start the 
AE/SAE documentation in the eCRF and to report serious adverse events (SAE) to the University 
Hospital of Essen. 
 
Serious Adverse Event (SAE): 
A serious adverse event is defined as any AE which 
 results in death,  
 is  life-threatening,  
 results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity,  
 requires in-patient hospitalization, or  
 prolongation of existing hospitalization, or 
 is a congenital anomaly/birth defect. 
Life-threatening in this context refers to a reaction in which the patient was at risk of death at the 
time of the reaction; it does not refer to a reaction that hypothetically might have caused death if 
more severe. 
Medical and scientific judgement should be exercised in deciding whether other situations should 
be considered serious reactions, such as important medical events that might not be immediately 
life threatening or result in death or hospitalization but might jeopardize the patient or might require 
intervention to prevent one of the other outcomes listed above. Examples of such events are 
intensive treatment in an emergency room or at home for allergic bronchospasm, blood dyscrasias 
or convulsions that do not result in hospitalization or development of dependency or abuse. Any 
suspected transmission via a medicinal product of an infectious agent is also considered a serious 
adverse reaction. 
The basis for judging the causal relationship between the product of interest and the adverse event 
is described below. 
A (Serious) Adverse Event can be an outcome/endpoint but is not necessarily one. Nevertheless 
each (S)AE is to be reported if above mentioned criteria are fulfilled. 
(Serious) Adverse Drug Reaction ((S)ADR): 
If an adverse event has been deemed by the investigator to have a reasonable causal relationship 
with a drug, it is regarded as an adverse drug reaction. 
Causality assessment: 
The expression “Reasonable causal relationship” is meant to convey in general that there are facts 
(evidence) or arguments to suggest a causal relationship. Medical judgment should be used to 
determine the causal relationship, considering all relevant factors, including pattern of reaction, 
temporal relationship, positive de-challenge or re-challenge and/or confounding factors such as 
concomitant medication, concomitant diseases and relevant history.  
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 28 of 59 
 
6.2.2.2. 
Serious Adverse Event and (Serious) Adverse Reaction reporting 
After study entry i.e. after signing the informed consent or 7 days after index event at the latest  
until up to follow-up interview, all SAEs (cf. Section 6) are to be collected, documented, and 
reported within 24 h after awareness by the Investigator or Interviewer (Follow-up visit after 3 
months) to the Drug Safety Department of the University of Essen. If an Outcome event is also an 
SAE both must be reported. 
For patients who will not participate in the follow-up, only events that occur after study entry until 
discharge from the documenting hospital need to be reported. 
The investigator or interviewer has the obligation to report any SAE. The “Report Form for SAEs” 
has to be used for reporting which can be found in the eCRF (printable pdf-form for the 
investigator) and additionally in the Investigator Site File (ISF). After this form is filled out it has to 
be faxed to the Drug Safety Department of the University Hospital of Essen within 24 hours of 
becoming aware of the event to the following number: 
+49 (0) 201 723 947 4134  
In addition the correlating AE has to be documented on the “Adverse Events” form with the 
notification that this AE was declared as SAE.  
All SAEs continuing after the end of the study need to be followed up until the patient recovered or 
the event is sufficiently followed up.  
With receipt of any further information on any SAE or SADR, a follow-up report has to be 
completed immediately. 
Reporting of drug exposure during pregnancy:  
In rare cases pregnancy might occur. Any pregnancy and the outcome of pregnancy will be reported 
on the ‘Report of a pregnancy: Meldung einer Schwangerschaft’ form which can be found only in 
the ISF. 
APPROPRIATENESS OF MEASUREMENTS 
The measures conducted within this study reflect the current real-world approach regarding clinical 
practice.  
All sites will be trained for this trial. The Clinical Adjudication Committee (CAC) is responsible for 
the final assessment of strokes and major bleedings.  
AE and SAE in the follow-up will be systematically requested by the interviewer. 
 
7. STATISTICAL METHODS AND DETERMINATION OF SAMPLE SIZE 
Details of all analyses will be provided in the statistical and epidemiological analysis plan (SEAP). 
7.1. 
STATISTICAL DESIGN AND MODEL 
This prospective, multi-center observational study consists of a collection of baseline data for non-
valvular AF patients with ischemic stroke or TIA and a 3 months central follow-up period only in 
patients who were treated with dabigatran, vitamin K-antagonists, antiplatelets only or no oral 
antithrombotic treatment at all.  

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 29 of 59 
 
Analysis of the primary endpoint will be based on the number of major bleeding events within 3 
months of follow-up with respect to person-time under medication. For the analysis time-to-event 
methodology, namely Cox proportional-hazards models, will be used. As change of therapy is 
allowed during the observation period, each patient can contribute person-time to more than one 
treatment. As this is the case and risk for major bleeding is assumed to be higher at the beginning of 
the observation period than at the end, treatment will be included in the regression model as time-
dependent variable, i.e., using counting process syntax, for example described in Powell and 
Bagnell (24). To account for possible confounders of major bleeding, either conventional multiple 
regression or propensity scores (either as a PS-matched or PS-adjusted analysis) will be used. For a 
list of variables used to calculate the propensity score, see Section 7.4.2. 
7.2. 
NULL AND ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES 
In this observational post-authorisation study, we do not have formal primary null and alternative 
hypotheses. The primary objective is to compare 3 months major bleeding risk following TIA or 
ischemic stroke in patients with non-valvular AF under early dabigatran (initiated within 7 days) 
treatment with risk under late dabigatran (initiated later than 7 days) treatment and under VKA 
treatment, respectively. A further objective is to compare recurrent stroke risks for selected 
antithrombotic treatments including patients treated with no oral antithrombotics. 
7.3. 
CALCULATION OF STATISTICAL POWER 
It is planned to recruit approximately 10.000 patients in the study and thereof approximately 6.000 
patients with follow-up as shown in Figure 1. 
The number of patients included and the duration of enrolment are not driven by a formal sample 
size calculation, but are primarily dependent on the availability of eligible patients treated with 
dabigatran and on the presence of channeling bias (confounding by indication).  
Several possible scenarios for patient proportions and major bleeding risks within the first three 
months following the index event are presented in the following table. For example, comparing the 
group with early dabigatran admission (600 patients) and the late dabigatran group (1800 patients) 
and assuming major bleeding risks of 1% and 2% for the groups respectively, a statistical power of 
93.2% is obtained for detecting a significant difference between the two groups. 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 30 of 59 
 
Power calculation for different scenarios of patient proportions and major bleeding risks 
within the first three months following the index event 
 
Group 1 
Group 2 
Group 3 
Group 4 
Power 
 
(dabigatran 
early) 
(dabigatran 
late) 
(VKA) 
(no anti-
coagulation) 
G1-G2 
G1-G3 
G2-G3 
Proportion 
10% 
30% 
40% 
20% 
 
 
 
Group size (N) 
600 
1800 
2400 
1200 
 
 
 
Cumulative risk within 3 months (major bleeding) 
Scenario 1 
2% 
3% 
4% 
5% 
63.9% 
98.9% 
78.0% 
Scenario 2 
1% 
2% 
3% 
4% 
93.2% 
>99.9% 
93.8% 
Scenario 3 
0,5% 
1% 
2% 
3% 
84.4% 
>99.9% 
>99.9% 
 
Group 1 
Group 2 
Group 3 
Group 4 
Power 
 
(dabigatran 
early) 
(dabigatran 
late) 
(VKA) 
(no anti-
coagulation) 
G1-G2 
G1-G3 
G2-G3 
Proportion 
15% 
25% 
35% 
25% 
 
 
 
Group size (N) 
900 
1500 
2100 
1500 
 
 
 
Cumulative risk within 3 months (major bleeding) 
Scenario 1 
2% 
3% 
4% 
5% 
73.5% 
99.8% 
71.3% 
Scenario 2 
1% 
2% 
3% 
4% 
97.1% 
>99.9% 
89.7% 
Scenario 3 
0,5% 
1% 
2% 
3% 
91.3% 
>99.9% 
99.8% 
 
Group 1 
Group 2 
Group 3 
Group 4 
Power 
 
(dabigatran 
early) 
(dabigatran 
late) 
(VKA) 
(no anti-
coagulation) 
G1-G2 
G1-G3 
G2-G3 
Proportion 
5% 
35% 
35% 
25% 
 
 
 
Group size (N) 
300 
2100 
2100 
1500 
 
 
 
Cumulative risk within 3 months (major bleeding) 
Scenario 1 
2% 
3% 
4% 
5% 
42.4% 
88.3% 
78.9% 
Scenario 2 
1% 
2% 
3% 
4% 
75.2% 
99.3% 
94.2% 
Scenario 3 
0,5% 
1% 
2% 
3% 
62.2% 
99.8% 
>99.9% 
 
Group 1 
Group 2 
Group 3 
Group 4 
Power 
 
(dabigatran 
early) 
(dabigatran 
late) 
(VKA) 
(no anti-
coagulation) 
G1-G2 
G1-G3 
G2-G3 
Proportion 
5% 
10% 
50% 
35% 
 
 
 
Group size (N) 
300 
600 
3000 
2100 
 
 
 
Cumulative risk within 3 months (major bleeding) 
Scenario 1 
2% 
3% 
4% 
5% 
33.9% 
89.5% 
47.9% 
Scenario 2 
1% 
2% 
3% 
4% 
63.3% 
99.4% 
68.5% 
Scenario 3 
0,5% 
1% 
2% 
3% 
50.8% 
99.9% 
95.4% 
 
7.4. 
PLANNED ANALYSES 
Analyses will be performed by the statistician of the Institute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and 
Epidemiology (IMIBE) in Essen and by the Department of Neurology, University Hospital of 
Essen. A final analysis and a report will be prepared once the data collection is completed, the data 
are cleaned, and the database is locked. 
The analysis population will consist of all eligible patients (i.e. all patients fulfilling the population 
description of the study) and the analysis will focus on the antithrombotic treatment choice for 
stroke prevention. 
The primary endpoint, major bleeding event rate within 3 months following the index event, will be 
examined using the model specified in Section 7.1. The decision will be based on the hazard ratios 
of early dabigatran treatment (compared with late dabigatran treatment and with VKA) and its 
respective 95% Wald confidence limits. In addition, hazard functions for major bleeding under 
different treatments will be compared. Furthermore, time-dependent ROC curve analysis will be 
performed to determine the optimal time point for administration of dabigatran. For this analysis all 
person-times corresponding to dabigatran treatment will be considered. 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 31 of 59 
 
The secondary endpoints will be analyzed with the same Cox proportional-hazards approach as the 
primary endpoint as long as they are time-to-event endpoints (see 6.1.1).  
 
The model assumptions of the proportional hazards models will be visually checked by Schoenfeld 
residuals. Summary statistics for continuous variables will include the N, mean, standard deviation, 
minimum, Q1 (lower quartile), median, Q3 (upper quartile), and maximum value. 
Tabulations of categorical variables will present all possible categories and will display the number 
of observations per category as well as percentages. All estimates will be presented with 95% 
confidence intervals.  
All these analyses can be accompanied by p-values of suitable statistical tests. All p-values and 
confidence intervals but the p-value of the primary hypothesis are descriptive in nature and used for 
explorative purposes only.  
Demographics and baseline characteristics of the population will be analyzed descriptively.  
Estimates and confidence intervals for event rates (interpreted on a descriptive level) will be 
computed. 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for several outcome events. Therefore, it can 
be expected that false positive significant differences may arise, i.e., a treatment regimen cohort 
may appear by chance with a lower or a higher event rate for specific outcome events or for the 
composite endpoint variable; consequently, results have to be interpreted with care. 
 
7.4.1. 
Secondary efficacy analyses 
A) Patient characteristics influencing choice of antithrombotic treatment for stroke 
prevention at baseline 
Demographics and baseline characteristics (including specifically stroke/bleeding risk scores 
(CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED, see Appendix 12.1)) will be summarized descriptively 
for all eligible patients by antithrombotic treatment choice for stroke prevention at the baseline 
visit. 
The antithrombotic treatment choice for secondary stroke prevention at discharge visit  will be 
described.  
Potential channeling bias between patients initiating dabigatran, other nOACs and VKA at 
discharge will be explored using comparisons of important baseline characteristics such as stroke or 
bleeding risk factors. A precise description can be found in the Statistical and Epidemiological 
Analysis Plan.  
B) Important outcome events 
Incidence rates and cumulative risks over time since initiation with 95%-confidence intervals for 
important outcome events (see Section 6.1) will be calculated within the different antithrombotic 
treatments and no treatment cohorts. The analysis will be based on all eligible patients initiating 
dabigatran or VKA for stroke prevention. Patients who discontinue dabigatran or VKA treatment 
for stroke prevention permanently or switch to a different treatment without experiencing the 
respective important outcome event will be censored at date of last drug intake. 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 32 of 59 
 
In order to explore which factors potentially modify the effect of different antithrombotic 
treatments vs. no anticoagulation in terms of occurrence of important outcome events, the incidence 
rates for the dabigatran and VKA groups by subgroup variables will be calculated for at least the 
following subgroups: age, gender, CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED risk scores. 
As a sensitivity analysis, incidence rates for important outcome by antithrombotic treatment will be 
calculated without censoring at permanent discontinuation of an antithrombotic treatment. 
C) Analysis of composite endpoint of stroke, vascular death, MI, life-threatening bleeds  
Incidence rates and cumulative risks with 95%-confidence intervals for the composite endpoint and 
for the individual components of the composite endpoint will be calculated. In addition these 
analyses will be done stratified by antithrombotic treatment for indication other than AF. This 
analysis will be repeated within subgroups. Subgroup variables are, e.g., age, gender, stroke and 
bleeding risk factors.  
The analysis will be based on antithrombotic treatment choice prescribed for secondary prevention 
and all eligible patients. Patients who discontinue antithrombotic treatment for stroke prevention 
permanently or switch to a different treatment without experiencing one of the composite endpoint 
defining outcome events will be censored at date of last drug.  
As a sensitivity analysis, incidence for the composite endpoint by antithrombotic treatment will be 
calculated without censoring at permanent discontinuation of an antithrombotic treatment 
7.4.2. 
Potential for bias and confounding 
Selection bias 
Selection bias may occur on two different levels: The site level and the patient level. If sites where 
dabigatran is most used differ systematically with respect to patients or routine procedures from 
sites in which it is less used, the between-site difference would lead to non-comparability between 
dabigatran patients and others, even if no clinician accounted for patient characteristics in his or her 
decision to use the product. 
 
Loss to follow up 
All efforts will be made to minimize loss to follow up in patients with a pre-planned follow up (e.g. 
contact with family members, family doctor/treating physician, local citizen registry, legal 
representatives, geriatric nurses), particularly for the assessment of vital status.  
Channeling bias (confounding by indication) 
Channeling bias can occur due to preferential prescribing in relation to different risks for the events 
of interest, e.g., if dabigatran was more often prescribed to patients at higher risk of bleeding 
compared to other treatments, higher incidences of outcome events would then be expected in the 
dabigatran group. The potential for channeling bias will be controlled via including propensity 
scores in the respective regression model. In order to control for potential channeling, regular 
assessments will be conducted, i.e., patients initiating antithrombotic treatments will be assessed 
regarding the comparability of important patient baseline characteristics (e.g., age, sex, 
comorbidities, stroke and bleeding risk scores, concomitant medications). Further comparisons of 
other nOACs may be added. Details of the propensity score can be found at the end of this section. 
Furthermore, a subgroup analysis will be undertaken that compares patients with first-time strokes 
and patients with recurrent strokes. 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 33 of 59 
 
Depletion of susceptibles and healthy user / adherence bias 
Depletion of susceptibles occurs, when persons most at risk for an event suffer the event early on in 
therapy, so that cohorts ascertained later during therapy have a lower prevalence of such at risk 
patients. In the absence of a direct measure of susceptibility, depletion of susceptibles manifests 
itself as an apparently declining risk with the passage of time. Other common reasons for a risk that 
declines with time elapsed since initiation of therapy include metabolic adaptations that diminish 
the effect of the product (tachyphylaxis) and the prescriber's acquisition of skill in managing the 
drug for a particular patient. Whatever the origin, when the risk of an outcome varies over time 
especially when the risk is higher just after initiating therapy and declines thereafter, the 
comparison of prevalent users and incident (new) users will be biased, because long-time users will 
be less likely to manifest the outcome of interest. In addition, there is a potential healthy user / 
adherence bias, i.e. patients who use a drug or are adherent with treatment are more likely to be 
healthier in general (e.g. have other healthy behaviors) than patients who are non-user/non-
adherent. The effects of changes in risk with time and adherence will be reduced through inclusion 
within 1 week after ischemic stroke or TIA. To account for time-varying risks, estimates of 
cumulative risks will be calculated. Due to the possibility that medication may change during the 
observation period, time-varying risks may bias medication effects if one treatment is, on average, 
initiated at a later point in time than another. To account for this, medication will be modeled as a 
time-dependent variable in the Cox regression, i.e., using the counting process syntax described in 
Powell and Bagnell (24) as mentioned at the beginning of this section. 
Information and recall bias 
Information bias can e.g. occur due to selective under-reporting of already established and known 
adverse effects for a known product (e.g. VKA) as compared to a new product (e.g. dabigatran), or 
vice versa. A standardized data collection form will be used for assessing exposure and AEs (see 
Section 6). Medical charts at hospital will also be reviewed by site staff and during CRA 
monitoring visits. These standardized procedures for data collection are intended to minimize such 
biases. Recall bias may be caused, e.g., if visits are separated by long time intervals and patients 
forget certain information (e.g., use of over-the-counter medications). It can be reduced by 
associating questions with specified time intervals (e.g. how often did you take this co-medication 
during the last 5 days?). 
Confounding 
The distribution of known prognostic factors for major bleeding events will be studied across 
therapeutic subgroups (e.g. early/late dabigatran, VKA) and factors that lack unequal distributions 
across subgroups will be adjusted for by either conventional multiple regression analysis or by 
propensity score analysis (either adjusted or matched). Propensity scores are superior to 
conventional multiple regression in terms of controlling for baseline covariates if and only if there 
are few events and a very large number of confounders. The following baseline information will be 
included in either case: previous major bleedings (intracranial or gastrointestinal), prior treatment 
with VKA and unstable INR, risk of tripping/falling, renal and/or liver insufficiency, age, treatment 
with thrombolysis or thrombectomy for index event and treatment with valproate. 
7.4.3. 
Treatment related analyses 
A) Drug utilisation (i.e. treatment compliance and persistence) 
Characteristics of the drug exposure and utilization will be analysed descriptively for patients 
receiving antithrombotic therapies. This includes choice of dosage (for selected treatment regimens 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 34 of 59 
 
only), treatment persistence in terms of duration of therapy and compliance in terms of accordance 
with the prescribed medication regimen.  
B) Investigator compliance with the SmPC  
Compliance with the antithrombotic treatment SmPC  with regards to indication, posology, 
contraindications and warnings will be evaluated by conducting the following analyses:  
 
Percentage and characterization (if feasible based on patient number) of dabigatran and 
VKA initiators outside the SmPC indication, 
 
Percentage and characterization (if feasible based on patient number) of dabigatran and 
VKA initiators with contraindications (overall and per contraindication captured), 
 
Percentage and characterization of dabigatran and VKA initiators with relevant co-
medications that should be used with caution, 
 
Percentage and characterization (if feasible based on patient number) of dabigatran and 
VKA initiators without assessment of renal function (no Serum Creatinine Concentration 
reported) or liver function prior to treatment initiation, 
 
Percentage and characterization (if feasible based on patient number) of dabigatran initiators 
receiving dose which are not recommended according to SmPC,  
 
Percentage and characterization (if feasible based on patient number) of dabigatran initiators 
receiving 150 mg BID although 110 mg BID is recommended according to SmPC (e.g. 
patients > 80 years or patients with high bleeding risk), 
 
Percentage and characterization (if feasible based on patient number) of dabigatran and 
VKA initiators without an interruption of dabigatran due to outcome events (including 
major bleeds), procedures and other events which necessitate treatment interruptions (e.g. 
major trauma). 
 
These analyses will be based on the treatment choice; therefore only eligible patients receiving 
dabigatran and VKA treatment for secondary prevention at the starting point of treatment will be 
included. 
C) Treatment strategies in patients with important outcome events 
The number and percentage of patients switching their antithrombotic treatment for stroke 
prevention for the first, second, third time and so on will be calculated based on the subgroup of the 
eligible patients who experience an important outcome event under their antithrombotic treatment 
regimen. The number and percentage of patients discontinuing their treatment will be broken down 
by subsequent treatment choice. This analysis will be performed overall and by current 
antithrombotic treatment for stroke prevention. 
Additionally, analysis of site characteristics will be performed; demographics and patients` baseline 
characteristics will be summarized by further subgroup variables. Additional analyses including the 
analysis of possible further outcomes or of further subgroups may be performed based on new 
information that might become available during the course of the study and based on results 
obtained by the described analyses. These analyses will be described in the SEAP. 
7.4.4. 
Safety analyses 
The safety analyses will include all patients enrolled with planned follow up (i.e. only patients who 
were discharged with dabigatran, vitamin K-antagonists, antiplatelets only, or no oral 
antithrombotic treatment at all). Statistical analysis and reporting of ADRs will be descriptive in 
nature. No hypothesis testing is planned. 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 35 of 59 
 
Occurrences of ADRs will be analyzed relative to the number of patients treated and additionally 
relative to observed patient-years (i.e. time at risk). The safety analysis will be based on the concept 
of treatment emergent adverse events. Patients will be analyzed according to the antithrombotic 
treatment for stroke prevention they have received at the time of the event. Adverse events that 
deteriorate under treatment will also be considered as 'treatment emergent'. The safety analyses will 
include the following parameters: 
 
AE 
 
ADRs (related to antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention) 
 
AE leading to discontinuation of antithrombotic treatment  
 
SAEs 
 
SARs (related to any antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention) 
 
Deaths 
Systematic follow-up of vital signs and laboratory parameters is not planned. 
7.4.5. 
Continuous Safety Monitoring 
Analysis of safety parameters will be performed during the conduct of the study on a regular basis. 
If periodic reports on drugs are required, they will be sent to the competent authority and the 
leading ethics committee. 
7.4.6. 
Interim analyses 
There are no interim analyses planned in this study. 
7.5. 
HANDLING OF MISSING DATA 
In order to assess the effects of loss to follow-up, patients, percentages of dropouts and reason for 
loss to follow-up will be summarized in patients with a pre-planned follow up (such as patients 
initiating defined antithrombotic treatments or no anticoagulation). In addition baseline 
characteristics of patients who were lost to follow-up in comparison to patients with a complete 
follow-up will be described. 
Any reasonable attempt will be undertaken to ensure completeness of data collection in this study 
(see also Section 9.4). Imputation might be performed dependent on amount and distribution of 
missing values. 
7.6. 
RANDOMISATION 
Not applicable. 
 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 36 of 59 
 
8. DATA PROTECTION 
The European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU)2016/679, as effective from 25th 
May 2018, which has replaced the European Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, and is legally 
binding immediately in every European member state, forms the legal background for the 
protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement 
of such data in the European Union. Especially in Germany, the informational self-determination is 
regarded as a basic right, which has to be considered in the context of data collection, transmission, 
evaluation and storing. Generally, the handling of personal data is only allowed after the person 
concerned has been properly informed about all aspects of the data collection and has given his/her 
written consent, Art. 6 (1) a) GDPR (cf. Fig. 2). But there are also other justifications for the 
legality of data processing in the GDPR, Art. 6 (1) b) – f). 
For all stroke units, where patients are treated in the context of the PRODAST study, it can be 
proven that data collection is done in order to fulfill a specific research purpose by carefully 
describing the scientific question to be answered answer and the purpose for data evaluation. 
Generally, a medical research project, that observes the safety aspects of medicinal products, will 
be of potential necessity for public interest. Above all, scientific research must be an independent 
process free from external influence, but is not hindered to be financed by third-party funding. Data 
that has originally been collected by the general practitioners, hospitals or health care facilities for 
the purpose of therapy, will be transmitted and evaluated for another purpose, namely scientific 
research. This is allowed, in cases where the scientific interest for performing the research project 
prevails the interest of the patient for keeping the purpose limited to therapy. Additionally, it needs 
to be shown, that the research purpose cannot be fulfilled at all or only with disproportional effort 
in another way. 
In PRODAST, the research purpose can only be fulfilled by also using data of participants who 
cannot consent themselves or when informed consent is given by a legal representative. The 
necessity can be shown in a relation of expenditure of time, costs and manpower to the value of the 
data. In PRODAST, most stroke patients will be at least temporarily incapable of giving an 
informed consent and might not have a legal representative (appointed by court) or proxy agent, but 
their data is extremely necessary for the evidence of the study. If the PRODAST study would only 
be performed with data of patients having the full legal capacity to consent to data transmission, 
there might be a lack of evidence for the whole study. A careful description of the research purpose 
and its scientific value will enable justification of the transmission of additional data from sources 
outside of stroke units. Only this might outweigh the high-ranking right of the patients to 
informational self-determination. 
At the same time, all possible measures to reduce data volume and personal reference will be taken.  
Commercial reasons for research are suspended. The use of personal data has a high potential of 
disadvantages for the person concerned depending on the research purpose and the number of 
persons involved in the data processing, which might increase the risk of unauthorized access. In 
order to protect the data of patients, strict rules for the technical and organizational handling of the 
data, especially pseudonymization, will be put in place. As in the PRODAST study re-identification 
is important for re-contacting the study participants in the follow-up phase, anonymization of the 
data would be inefficient. As, on the other hand, pseudonymization allows the allocation of 
personal references and medical data, only a special user group responsible for the data monitoring 
in the PRODAST study at the University Hospital Essen shall have knowledge of this correlation. 
Subject to a special data protection concept is the separated storage of personal reference and 
medical data in different databases. The data which identifies the study participants (IDAT) will 
only be used to approach the participants for the telephone interview during the follow-up phase. 
The medical data (MDAT) collected during hospital stay and follow-up phase will be stored in a 
separate database as pseudonymized data by using a patient identification number (PAT-ID).   

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 37 of 59 
 
Special caution has to be exercised in cases of data transmission from other sources like general 
practitioners, hospitals or health care facilities, as it is planned in the PRODAST study in the phase 
of central follow-up. There are two general principles in data protection law, which have to be 
followed with the exception of special circumstances: Generally, the data shall be collected under 
participation and with knowledge of the person concerned. Therefore, the patient interview shall 
take precedence over the data submission from other sources. In the case of a patient, who is 
permanently incapable of giving consent and data collection in direct contact with the patient would 
be impossible, it could be regarded as an exceptional circumstance under which data transmission 
from other sources would be possible. It is important to assure that predominant interests of the 
patient will not be harmed.  
The second principle points to purpose limitation of data collection, transmission and evaluation: If 
an entity of the public sector, e.g. the University Hospital Essen, asks for transmission of data from 
another source, this entity has to prove the legitimacy of data transmission. In this context, medical 
confidentiality (as stated in § 203 (1) No. 1 of the German Penal Code, StGB) is an important point 
to consider: In principle, a patient has to release his medical practitioner from confidentiality before 
medical data may be submitted. An exception can be made, as the University Hospital Essen is able 
to prove that it is also legally bound to keep all data confidential by performance of its duties as a 
research institution, according to § 203 (2) No. 6 StGB (German Penal Code). 
Specifications about the patient information and the informed consent, especially for above 
mentioned exceptional cases, are described in Sections 9.1 and 12.5. 
A detailed description of the legal background regarding data protection can be found in Section 
12.4. 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 38 of 59 
 
 
Fig. 2: Illustration of the context of data protection and informed consent with regard to the inclusion of 
patients found eligible and willing to participate in the PRODAST study. The exceptional case for patients 
who die before informed consent is given personally is described in chapter12.5.3.  
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 39 of 59 
 
As a general rule, it shall be forbidden to process special categories of data, e.g. health data, Art. 9 
(1) GDPR. An exemption can be made, e.g. in cases of an informed consent given by the affected 
person, Art 9 (2) a) GDPR. Another important exemption in data protection law in the field of 
medical and scientific research is offered by Art. 9 (2) j) GDPR. This example for the possibility to 
use data without the prior informed consent of the affected person is shown in Fig. 2. . It is 
especially important in order to allow the participation of patients who are incapable to give consent 
due to a medical condition (e.g. stroke) which is to be studied in the research project. Within the 
different types of research projects, a non-interventional study which aims to observe the routine 
use of medicinal products has to be regarded differently from a clinical study with a medicinal 
product in consideration of vital interests of the study participants. According to Art. 9 (2) j) 
GDPR, the processing of personal data, e.g. concerning health, shall be allowed in cases where it is 
necessary for reasons of scientific research purposes and if the data processing is proportionate in 
relation to the targeted goal, the person’s rights regarding data protection are preserved and 
appropriate and specific measures are taken in order to protect the basic rights and interests of the 
affected person. More details regarding guarantees and exemptions for the data processing for 
scientific research purposes can be found in Art. 89 GDPR. Recital No. 156 of the Directive points 
out that important reasons of public interest, that justify the derogation from the prohibition on 
processing sensitive categories of data, can be seen in areas such as public health and scientific 
research.  
A detailed description of the legal background regarding data protection can be found in Section 
12.4.  
Specifications about the patient information and the informed consent, especially for above 
mentioned exceptional cases, are described in Section 9 and Section 12.5. 
9. INFORMED CONSENT, STUDY RECORDS 
9.1. 
STUDY APPROVAL AND INFORMED CONSENT 
According to the legal requirements of § 67 (6) of the German Medicine Act, a notification will be 
send to the competent authority (Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte, BfArM), 
“Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung“, „Spitzenverband Bund der Krankenkassen“ and „Verband 
der Privaten Krankenversicherung e.V.“ with the start of the PRODAST study. The Director of 
Investigation will provide the competent authority with the PRODAST protocol and progress 
reports when requested. Also a favourable vote of the leading IEC will be requested prior initiation 
of this study. Although, according to German law, a favourable vote of an IEC is not mandatory for 
the performance of non-interventional, observational studies, the prior consultation of an Ethics 
Committee is recommended by the German competent authorities (BfArM, PEI) in order to avoid 
conflicting interests concerning data protection, patient protection, protection and liability of 
medical personnel and interests of the Director of Investigation. Furthermore, most of the Medical 
Association’s Professional Codes of Conduct in the German federal states indicate a consultation of 
an IEC as a requirement for all research projects, including epidemiological studies, especially 
concerning patient protection, protection of informational self-determination and risk-benefit 
balance. 
Prior to patient participation in the PRODAST study, written informed consent for collection, 
transmission, evaluation and storing of sensitive personal data must be obtained from each patient 
(or the patient’s legal representative) according to the regulatory and legal requirements of the 
participating country. The patient should be given appropriate time to consider if he/she accepts to 
participate in the PRODAST study. In exceptional cases and under strict conditions, national 
regulations might allow the participation of patients without written informed consent (for details 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 40 of 59 
 
see Sections 8 and 12.5). In this case the investigator must sign and date on special informed 
consent forms that the patient is incapable. 
Each signature must be personally dated by each signatory and the informed consent and any 
additional patient information form retained by the investigator as part of the study.  
A signed copy of the informed consent and any additional patient information must be given to 
each patient or the patient’s legal representative. 
Furthermore the patients must be informed that the study-related data/information obtained within 
the framework of this study will be recorded and forwarded without disclosing any names 
(pseudonymized) to the Centre for Clinical Trials in Essen (ZKSE). 
Patients must also be informed that a delegated and authorized person such as a monitor (Clinical 
Research Associate, CRA) or auditor, who is obliged to secrecy, and the competent national and 
international supervisory and regulatory authorities may review the personal medical records kept 
by the investigator. 
 
9.2. 
INSPECTIONS / AUDITS 
A quality assurance audit of the PRODAST study may be conducted by an IEC or the Director of 
Investigation of the study or his designees. The quality assurance auditor must be provided access 
to all medical records, the investigator’s study-related files and correspondence, and the informed 
consent documentation that is relevant to this study. 
9.3. 
STUDY RECORDS AND REPORTING 
All of the clinical data and site/investigator characteristics will be captured in electronic Case 
Report Forms (eCRFs) using a web-based electronic data capture (EDC) system with secure access 
features (username, password and secure identification – an electronic password system). The 
software will comply with GCP and international standards for capturing study data.  
The data will be entered into the eCRF online via internet by the central follow-up staff and the 
responsible investigator at the study site soon after measurement. Entering data may be delegated to 
members of the site’s study team. The eCRF has to be signed electronically by the investigator to 
confirm the correctness of captured data. 
Data entry into the eCRF is allowed only after informed consent. 
All data in the eCRF will be identified only by a patient identification number (patient ID) allocated 
from informed consent. The date of birth shall be documented in the eCRF only by year, not the 
day or month. The investigator stores a separate confidential record of these details in the 
investigator site file (ISF) to permit identification of all patients enrolled in the study.  
Name and contact details of patients and their family doctors/treating physicians will further be 
stored in a separate database, with secure access only by people who perform the central follow-up. 
For this a copy with the required details from the informed consent will be faxed to the central 
office in Essen. 
 
The investigator will be responsible for retaining all records pertaining to the study as specified in 
the appropriate contract. 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 41 of 59 
 
9.3.1. 
Source documents 
Source documents provide evidence for the existence of the patient and substantiate the integrity of 
the data collected. Source documents are filed at the investigator’s site. 
Data entered in the eCRF that are transcribed from source documents must be consistent with the 
source documents or the discrepancies must be explained. A template to support source data 
documentation is available in the ISF. The investigator may need to request previous medical 
records or transfer records, depending on the study; also current medical records must be available. 
For the eCRFs all data must be derived from source documents. 
9.3.2. 
Direct access to source data and documents 
The investigator / institution will permit study-related monitoring and audits providing direct access 
to all related source data / documents. CRFs and all source documents, including progress notes and 
medical test results must be available at all times for review by the Director of Investigation and his 
designee(s) and auditors. The Clinical Research Associate (CRA) / auditor may review all CRFs 
and signed informed consent forms. The accuracy of the data will be verified by reviewing the 
documents described in Section 9.3.1 and in the Monitoring Plan. 
9.4. 
DATA MANAGEMENT / CENTRAL MONITORING 
A data management plan (DMP) will be created to describe all functions, processes, and 
specifications for data collection, cleaning and validation. The eCRFs will be reviewed if data is 
missing, out of range, inconsistent or potentially erroneous. For this, simple checks such as range 
validation, date inconsistency or presence/absence of data, or complex cross-form verifications such 
as date deviations across visits will be carried out. Many plausibility checks are run automatically 
during data entry in the eCRF, thereby detecting many discrepancies immediately. The CRA and 
data management will conduct further manual checks for completeness and plausibility and will 
clarify any questions with the study sites electronically via the EDC software and these queries are 
followed up for resolution. A responsible investigator will be obliged to either correct the 
implausible data or to confirm its authenticity and to give appropriate explanations. 
Further in depth checks for plausibility, consistency and completeness of the data will be performed 
after completion of the study. If no further corrections are to be made, the database will be declared 
closed and be used for the statistical analysis.  
Further details will be described in the Monitoring Plan and DMP. 
MedDRA (Medical Dictionary for Drug Regulatory Activities) will be used for coding of AEs and 
SAEs, diseases (medical history and concomitant diseases) and concomitant therapies will be coded 
using the ATC classification system. 
A source data quality audit may be initiated to ensure that the data recorded in the database are 
accurate. Source data verification (SDV) will be performed at sites identified by a risk-based 
approach outlined in the monitoring plan. 
9.4.1. 
Storage and archiving of data and study-related documents 
The eCRF database uses an automatic data backup system. 
All study-related documents and pseudonymized data will be deleted 10 years after study closure. 
Study sites are also obliged to archive all study-related data. 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 42 of 59 
 
Personal contact information of participating patients, stored in separate database, will be 
permanently deleted within 3 months after the last study related assessment.  
9.5. 
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY 
Individual patient medical information obtained as a result of this study is considered confidential 
and disclosure to third parties is prohibited with the exceptions noted below. Patient confidentiality 
will be ensured by using patient identification code numbers and a specific patient’s ID-list. Only 
the staff of the centre conducting the central follow-up has further access to the patient’s contact 
details via a secured database. Treatment data may be given to the patient’s personal physician or to 
other appropriate medical personnel responsible for the patient’s welfare. Data generated as a result 
of the study need to be available for inspection on request by the participating physicians, by the 
Institutional Review Board / IEC competent health authorities and the Director of Investigation 
and/or its representatives and/or designees.  
The data collected in the eCRFs will be transferred to the database via the Internet through secure 
web-sites. Details are described in the ISF and the DMP.  
9.6. 
COMPLETION OF STUDY 
A report will be sent to the competent authority in Germany according to legal requirements within 
one year after the end or early termination of the study.  
9.7. 
PUBLICATION POLICY 
It is the joint task of the Operations and the Steering Committee to facilitate publications and/or 
presentations of data from this study. Authorship will be determined jointly by the SC, the Director 
of Investigation and ZKSE / ZKE / IMIBE. The rights of the Operations Committee, of the 
Investigators and of the Director of Investigation with regards to publication of the result of this 
study are described in the individual contracts and in the SC and OC charters. Any publication of 
this study though must be guided by the current version of the Uniform Requirements for 
Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication of 
the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).  
 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 43 of 59 
 
10. STUDY ADMINISTRATION 
All persons responsible for the study are listed in the investigator site file including name, address, 
phone and email. 
In order to monitor specific aspects of the current study, the following Reference Committees will 
be established: Steering Committee (SC), Operations Committee (OC) and a Clinical Adjudication 
Committee (CAC). The work of these committees will be based on the ‘Guideline on Data 
Monitoring Committees’ EMEA/CHMP/EWP/5872/03. 
 
10.1. 
STEERING COMMITTEE (SC) AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE (OC) 
A Steering Committee (SC) will provide scientific leadership for the planning and conduct of all 
phases of the study. It will be composed of experts in neurology and epidemiology with one Chair 
and Co-Chair. A charter describing the tasks and responsibility of the committee will be developed. 
Membership in the Steering Committee may change over time for various reasons. The SC will 
meet regularly, based upon the volume of work. Meetings will generally be by teleconference or 
web-conference. Face-to-face meetings may occasionally be held if there is a necessity. 
An Operations Committee (OC) consisting of a Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) representative, a 
statistician, as well as the study coordinators in Essen will monitor the study preparation and will 
report the study progress to the SC. 
 
10.2. 
CLINICAL ADJUDICATION COMMITTEE (CAC) 
A blinded (without information about the stroke prevention) Clinical Adjudication Committee will 
confirm all strokes and major bleeding events and it will make the final decision on whether a 
patient had any of these events. For this purpose the eCRF and, if necessary, additional information 
of the patient concerned will be examined by the members of this committee. The committee can 
also request additional ancillary information from an individual study investigator to assist their 
review. The CAC will also confirm the type (e.g. ischemic, hemorrhagic) and localization of each 
stroke or cause of death.  
 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 44 of 59 
 
11. REFERENCES 
11.1. 
PUBLISHED REFERENCES 
 
1. Battistella M, Mamdami MM, Juurlink DN, Rabeneck L, Laupacis A. (2005): “Risk of 
upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in warfarin users treated with nonselective NSAIDs or 
COX-2 inhibitors”. Arch Intern Med;165:189–92. 
2. Connolly, S. J., M. D. Ezekowitz, S. Yusuf, J. Eikelboom, J. Oldgren, A. Parekh, J. Pogue, 
P. A. Reilly, E. Themeles, J. Varrone, S. Wang, M. Alings, D. Xavier, J. Zhu, R. Diaz, B. S. 
Lewis, H. Darius, H. C. Diener, C. D. Joyner and L. Wallentin (2009). "Dabigatran versus 
warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation." N Engl J Med 361(12): 1139-1151. 
3. Furie, K. L., S. E. Kasner, R. J. Adams, G. W. Albers, R. L. Bush, S. C. Fagan, J. L. 
Halperin, S. C. Johnston, I. Katzan, W. N. Kernan, P. H. Mitchell, B. Ovbiagele, Y. Y. 
Palesch, R. L. Sacco, L. H. Schwamm, S. Wassertheil-Smoller, T. N. Turan and D. 
Wentworth (2011). "Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke or 
transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the american heart 
association/american stroke association." Stroke 42(1): 227-276. 
4. Gage, B. F., M. Boechler, A. L. Doggette, G. Fortune, G. C. Flaker, M. W. Rich and M. J. 
Radford (2000). "Adverse outcomes and predictors of underuse of antithrombotic therapy in 
medicare beneficiaries with chronic atrial fibrillation." Stroke 31(4): 822-827. 
5. Gage BF, Waterman AD, Shannon W, Boechler M, Rich MW, Radford MJ. (2001) 
"Validation of clinical classification schemes for predicting stroke: results from the National 
Registry of Atrial Fibrillation." JAMA 2001 Jun 13;285(22):2864-70. 
6. Gladstone, D. J., E. Bui, J. Fang, A. Laupacis, M. P. Lindsay, J. V. Tu, F. L. Silver and M. 
K. Kapral (2009). "Potentially preventable strokes in high-risk patients with atrial 
fibrillation who are not adequately anticoagulated." Stroke 40(1): 235-240. 
7. Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, eds. Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User's Guide. 
(Prepared by Outcome DEcIDE Center [Outcome Sciences, Inc. dba Outcome] under 
Contract No. HHSA29020050035I TO1). AHRQ Publication No. 07-EHC001-1. Rockville, 
MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.April 2007 
8. Go, A. S., E. M. Hylek, K. A. Phillips, Y. Chang, L. E. Henault, J. V. Selby and D. E. 
Singer (2001). "Prevalence of diagnosed atrial fibrillation in adults: national implications for 
rhythm management and stroke prevention: the AnTicoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial 
Fibrillation (ATRIA) Study." JAMA 285(18): 2370-2375. 
9. Grau, A. J., C. Weimar, F. Buggle, A. Heinrich, M. Goertler, S. Neumaier, J. Glahn, T. 
Brandt, W. Hacke and H. C. Diener (2001). "Risk factors, outcome, and treatment in 
subtypes of ischemic stroke - The German Stroke Data Bank." Stroke 32(11): 2559-2566. 
10. Hallas J, Dall M, Andries A, Andersen BS, Aalykke C, Hansen JM et al. (2006): "Use of 
single and combined antithrombotic therapy and risk of serious upper gastrointestinal 
bleeding: population based case-control study". BMJ;333:726. 
11. Hart, R. G., L. A. Pearce and M. I. Aguilar (2007). "Meta-analysis: antithrombotic therapy 
to prevent stroke in patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation." Ann Intern Med 
146(12): 857-867. 
12. Jespersen, S. F., L. M. Christensen, A. Christensen and H. Christensen (2013). "Use of oral 
anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation after stroke: results from a nationwide registry." 
Thrombosis 2013: 601450. 
13. Jones, M., P. McEwan, C. L. Morgan, J. R. Peters, J. Goodfellow and C. J. Currie (2005). 
"Evaluation of the pattern of treatment, level of anticoagulation control, and outcome of 
treatment with warfarin in patients with non-valvar atrial fibrillation: a record linkage study 
in a large British population." Heart 91(4): 472-477. 
14. Levi M(1), Hovingh GK, Cannegieter SC, Vermeulen M, Büller HR, Rosendaal FR. (2008) 
" Bleeding in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists who would have been excluded from 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 45 of 59 
 
trials on which the indication for anticoagulation was based.". Blood. 2008 May 
1;111(9):4471-6. 
15. Lip, G. Y., F. Andreotti, L. Fauchier, K. Huber, E. Hylek, E. Knight, D. A. Lane, M. Levi, 
F. Marin, G. Palareti, P. Kirchhof, r. Document, J. P. Collet, A. Rubboli, D. Poli and J. 
Camm (2011). "Bleeding risk assessment and management in atrial fibrillation patients: a 
position document from the European Heart Rhythm Association, endorsed by the European 
Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis." Europace 13(5): 723-746. 
16. Lip GY, Nieuwlaat R, Pisters R, Lane DA, Crijns HJ. (2010): "Refining clinical risk 
stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel 
risk factor-based approach: the euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2010 
Feb;137(2):263-72. 
17. Lubran MM (1995) " Renal function in the elderly." Ann Clin Lab Sci. 1995 Mar-
Apr;25(2):122-33. 
18. Mellemkjaer L, Blot WJ, Sorensen HT, Thomassen L, McLaughlin JK, Nielsen GL et al. 
(2002): "Upper gastrointestinal bleeding among users of NSAIDs: a populationbased cohort 
study in Denmark". Br J Clin Pharmacol;53:173–81. 
19. Niedziolka, K. (2012): “Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen der Anwendungsbeobachtung bei 
Arzneimitteln”, LIT Verlag Dr. W. Hopf, ISBN-10: 3643114249 
20. Ntaios, G., V. Papavasileiou, H. C. Diener, K. Makaritsis and P. Michel (2012). 
"Nonvitamin-K-antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and 
previous stroke or transient ischemic attack: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 
randomized controlled trials." Stroke 43(12): 3298-3304. 
21. Peters, N. S., R. J. Schilling, P. Kanagaratnam and V. Markides (2002). "Atrial fibrillation: 
strategies to control, combat, and cure." Lancet 359(9306): 593-603. 
22. Pisters R, Lane DA, Nieuwlaat R, de Vos CB, Crijns HJ, Lip GY. (2010): „A novel user-
friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial 
fibrillation: the Euro Heart Survey. Chest. 2010 Nov;138(5):1093-100 
23. Pöttgen, N. (2008): "Medizinische Forschung und Datenschutz". Peter Lang Verlag. ISBN-
10: 3631580509. 
24. Powell, T. M., & Bagnell, M. E. (2012). Your “survival” guide to using time-dependent 
covariates. In SAS Global Forum (Vol. 168). 
25. Schulman, S., U. Angeras, D. Bergqvist, B. Eriksson, M. R. Lassen, W. Fisher, S. 
Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation of the, T. Standardization Committee of the 
International Society on and Haemostasis (2010). "Definition of major bleeding in clinical 
investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in surgical patients." J Thromb Haemost 
8(1): 202-204. 
26. Sanna, T., H.C. Diener, R.S. Passman, V. Di Lazzaro, R. A. Bernstein, C. A. Morillo, M. M. 
Rymer, V. Thijs, T. Rogers, F. Beckes, K. Lindborg, J. Brachmann and C. A. Investigators 
(2014). "Cryptogenic stroke and underlying atrial fibrillation." N Engl J Med 370(26): 
2478-2486.  
27. Sørensen R, Hansen ML, Abildstrom SZ, Hvelplund A, Andersson C, Jørgensen C et al. 
(2009): "Risk of bleeding in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with different 
combinations of aspirin, clopidogrel, and vitamin K antagonists in Denmark: a retrospective 
analysis of nationwide registry data". Lancet;374:1967–74. 
28. Sørensen R, Gislason G, Torp-Pedersen C, Olesen JB, Fosbøl EL, Hvidtfeldt MW, Karasoy 
D, Lamberts M, Charlot M, Køber L, Weeke P, Lip GY, Hansen ML (2013): " Dabigatran 
use in Danish atrial fibrillation patients in 2011: a nationwide study." BMJ Open. 2013 May 
3;3(5). 
29. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD; Joint 
ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF Task Force for the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction, 
Katus HA, Lindahl B, Morrow DA, Clemmensen PM, Johanson P, Hod H, Underwood R, 
Bax JJ, Bonow RO, Pinto F, Gibbons RJ, Fox KA, Atar D, Newby LK, Galvani M, Hamm 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 46 of 59 
 
CW, Uretsky BF, Steg PG, Wijns W, Bassand JP, Menasché P, Ravkilde J, Ohman EM, 
Antman EM, Wallentin LC, Armstrong PW, Simoons ML, Januzzi JL, Nieminen MS, 
Gheorghiade M, Filippatos G, Luepker RV, Fortmann SP, Rosamond WD, Levy D, Wood 
D, Smith SC, Hu D, Lopez-Sendon JL, Robertson RM, Weaver D, Tendera M, Bove AA, 
Parkhomenko AN, Vasilieva EJ, Mendis S. (2012): " Third universal definition of 
myocardial infarction." Circulation. 2012 Oct 16;126(16):2020-35. 
30. Weimar, C., J. Benemann, Z. Katsarava, R. Weber and H. C. Diener (2008). "Adherence 
and quality of oral anticoagulation in cerebrovascular disease patients with atrial 
fibrillation." European Neurology 60(3): 142-148. 
31. Wolf, P. A., R. D. Abbott and W. B. Kannel (1991). "Atrial fibrillation as an independent 
risk factor for stroke: The Framingham Study." Stroke 22: 983-988. 
32. WMA (2013): "World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for 
Medical Research Involving Human Subjects". JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. 
33. Yoon, H.W., Giraldo, E.A., Wijdicks, E.F. (2011): "Valproic acid and warfarin: an 
underrecognized drug interaction". Neurocrit Care. 2011 Aug;15(1):182-5 
 
11.2. 
GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
34. Empfehlungen des Bundesinstituts für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (BfArM) und des 
Paul-Ehrlich-Instituts (PEI) zur Planung, Durchführung und Auswertung von 
Anwendungsbeobachtungen vom 7. Juli 2010, http://www.bfarm.de 
35. “Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products for prevention of stroke and 
systemic embolic events in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation” EMA 
/CHMP/341363/2014 
36. Good Pharmacovigilance Practices (GPV). Website: www. ema.europa.eu/ema 
Human regulatory/Pharmacovigilance 
37. EudraLex Vol. 9A of The Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union – 
Guidelines on Pharmacovigilance for Medicinal Products for Human Use –, Part I 7, 
September 2008, http://ec.europa.eu/ 
38. International Epidemiological Association (IEA) Good epidemiological practice (GEP): 
IEA guidelines for proper conduct of epidemiological research. Website: ieaweb.org/iea/ 
and /good-epidemiological-practice-gep/ 
39. Guidelines for good pharmacoepidemiology practices (GPP). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 
17, 200-208 (2008) 
40. KDIGO 2012: “Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic 
Kidney Disease”. Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2013 
http://www.kidney-international.org 
41. vfa-Empfehlungen zu nichtinterventionellen Prüfungen mit Arzneimitteln – Version 2014, 
http://www.vfa.de/de (VFA = Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies) 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 47 of 59 
 
12. APPENDICES 
12.1. 
SCORES FOR AF PATIENTS 
 
Data collected at the baseline visit will be used to generate the following scores for use in the 
respective analysis: 
Table 12.1.1: CHADS2 Stroke Risk Score 
CHADS2 components 
Points 
Congestive heart failure 
1 
Hypertension 
1 
Age 75 years or older 
1 
Diabetes mellitus 
1 
Prior cerebral ischemia (i.e., stroke, TIA) 
2 
Maximum score 
6 
 
CHADS2 score is based on a point system in which 2 points are assigned for a history of stroke or 
transient ischemic attack and 1 point each is assigned for age 75 years or older, hypertension, 
diabetes, or clinical heart failure or impaired left ventricular systolic function (generally interpreted 
as an ejection fraction ≤ 40%). A CHADS2 score of 0 identifies patients at low stroke risk, a score 
of 1 to 2 identifies patients at moderate stroke risk, and a score greater than 2 identifies patients at 
high stroke risk (5). 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 48 of 59 
 
Table 12.1.2: CHA2DS2-VASc Stroke Risk Score 
CHA2DS2VASc score 
Risk factors for stroke and thrombo-embolism in non-valvular AF 
Major risk factors 
Clinically relevant non-major risk factors 
Previous stroke, TIA, or systemic embolism 
Age ≥ 75 years 
Heart failure or moderate to severe LV 
systolic dysfunction (e.g. LV Ejection 
Fraction ≤40 %) Hypertension - Diabetes 
mellitus Female sex - Age 65-74 years 
Vascular disease 
Risk factor-based approach expressed as a point based scoring system, with the 
acronym CHA2DS2-VASc 
(Note: maximum score is 9 since age may contribute 0, 1, or 2 points) 
Risk factor 
Score 
Congestive heart failure/LV dysfunction 
1 
Hypertension 
1 
Age ≥75 
2 
Diabetes mellitus 
1 
Stroke/TIA/systemic embolism 
2 
Vascular disease* 
1 
Age 65-74 
1 
Sex category (i.e. female sex) 
1 
Maximum score 
9 
* myocardial infarction, complex aortic plaque and Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD) 
 
The CHA2DS2-VASc risk score is based on a point system in which 2 points are assigned for a 
history of stroke or TIA, or age ≥75; and 1 point each is assigned for age 65–74 years, a 
hypertension, diabetes, cardiac failure, vascular disease and female sex. On the basis of the risk 
strata defined in previous guidelines, a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 corresponds to “low risk”, a 
score of 1 corresponds to “intermediate risk”, and a score of 2 or more corresponds to “high risk” 
(16). 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 49 of 59 
 
Table 12.1.3: HAS-BLED Bleeding Risk SCORE  
Clinical characteristics comprising the HAS-BLED bleeding risk score 
Letter Clinical characteristic 
Points awarded 
H 
Hypertension 
1 
A 
Abnormal renal and liver 
function (1 point each) 
1 or 2 
S 
Stroke 
1 
B 
Bleeding 
1 
L 
Labile INRs 
1 
E 
Elderly (e.g. age >65 years) 
1 
D 
Drugs or alcohol (1 point each) 
1 or 2 
Maximum score 
9 
 
Hypertension is defined as systolic blood pressure >160 mmHg. ‘Abnormal renal function’ is 
defined as the presence of chronic dialysis or renal transplantation or serum creatinine ≥200 
µmol/L. ‘Abnormal liver function’ is defined as chronic hepatic disease (e.g. cirrhosis) or 
biochemical evidence of significant hepatic derangement (e.g. bilirubin >2 x upper limit of normal, 
in association with aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase/alkaline phosphatase >3 x 
upper limit normal). ‘Bleeding’ refers to previous bleeding history and/or predisposition to 
bleeding, e.g. bleeding diathesis, anemia, etc. ‘Labile INRs’ refers to unstable/high INRs or poor 
time in therapeutic range (e.g. <60%). Drugs/alcohol use refers to concomitant use of drugs, such as 
antiplatelet agents, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or alcohol abuse, etc. If a patient is not 
on VKA the value for ‘labile INRs’ will not be assessed. Further details will be given in the SEAP. 
A HAS-BLED score of ≥3 indicates ‘high risk’ for AF patients to develop a bleed and some caution 
and regular review of the patient is needed following the initiation of antithrombotic therapy, 
whether with VKA or aspirin (22). 
 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 50 of 59 
 
Table 12.1.4: Modified Rankin Scale (mRS)  
Definition of disabling stroke by modified Rankin Scale:  
Grade 0:  
no symptoms at all 
 
Grade 1:  
no significant disability despite symptoms; 
able to carry out all usual duties and activities 
Grade 2:  
slight disability: 
unable to carry out all previous activities but able to look after own affairs without assistance 
 
Grade 3:  
moderate disability: 
requiring some help but able to walk without assistance 
 
Grade 4:  
moderate severe disability: 
unable to walk without assistance and unable to attend to own bodily needs without assistance 
 
Grade 5:  
severe disability:  
bedridden, incontinent, and requiring constant nursing care and attention. 
Grade 6: 
dead 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 51 of 59 
 
Table 12.1.5: National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIH-SS)  
 
 
12.2. 
CREATININE CLEARANCE 
The serum creatinine clearance will be calculated according to Cockroft-Gault: 
Clcr (ml/min)   = 
(140 - age) * weight (kg) * GF 
72 * Scr (mg/dL) 
Clcr 
= 
Creatinine clearance 
ScrCrs = 
Serum creatinine  
(when serum creatinine is given in μmol/L, divide the value by 88.4) 
GF 
= 
Gender correction factor (0.85 for women and 1.00 for men) 
 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 52 of 59 
 
12.3. 
CONFOUNDERS 
Specific definitions for the assessment of outcome measures and important confounders are 
described in Section 6.1.2. A few additional definitions of confounders are presented below. More 
details regarding confounding can be found in Section 7.4.2.  
Prior treatment with VKA and unstable INR: 
It is important to know if a patient was treated with VKA in the past (VKA-experienced patient) or 
not (VKA- naïve patients). Whatever condition is present it should be recorded in the CRF. 
Furthermore it should be known if the INR was stable in VKA patients or not by checking if the 
INR was in the recommended therapeutic range as indicated in the SmPC for the VKA (cf. German 
SmPC :“Fachinformation: Marcumar MEDA Pharma”).  
The information of prior treatment with VKA may contribute to the choice of future anticoagulation 
compared to patients who never have been treated with a VKA (VKA-naïve patients). Furthermore 
a Danish study had shown that the adjusted risk of thromboembolism was higher among users of 
dabigatran as compared to warfarin, although when stratified by previous use of VKA, the 
increased risk of thromboembolism was only seen among previous VKA users (for both 110 and 
150 mg). The adjusted risk of bleeding was increased among patients treated with dabigatran (110 
mg) as compared to warfarin, which only persisted in previous users of VKA after stratification. 
Bleeding risk was increased in previous VKA users receiving dabigatran 110 mg, but not in patients 
with 150 mg dabigatran, nor in the VKA naïve users (28). 
Age: 
According to the AFFIRM trial the risk of major bleeding increases by 5% per year of age in 
elderly patients when comparing 70-74 year old patients with >85 year old ones. 
Moreover renal function is reduced with aging (17) and renal insufficiency is connected with a 
higher risk for bleeding. Renal function testing is therefore necessary in elderly patients and 
treatment with dabigatran should be adjusted in these patients (s. BfArM “Hinweise zum Umgang 
mit Blutungen unter Dabigatran (Pradaxa®)”). 
Furthermore it is also very important to know the exact age of each patient because it will 
contribute in the determination of different scores as the Stroke Risk and Major Bleeding Scores 
(CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, HAS-BLED, cf. Section 12.1 et seqq.).  
In addition patients of older age can be affected of a higher risk of tripping or falling (see below). 
The tendency of tripping or falling can be higher in elderly patients but there is no scientific 
evidence that it can influence the choice of medication especially for patients with atrial fibrillation 
indicated for treatment with anticoagulants.  
 
Concomitant Medication:  
Concomitant medications are known to have adverse effects in combination with anticoagulants 
(see below). It is therefore very important to record the patients’ concomitant medication but also 
his medical history. Therefore all concomitant medication will be recorded at discharge. After 
discharge concomitant medication will be only recorded for patients experiencing a serious adverse 
event or outcome event. In the following are some examples of adverse effects described for 
specific drugs/agents in combination with anticoagulants: 
 Antiplatelet drugs: 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 53 of 59 
 
VKAs combined with e.g. ASS have a higher risk for major bleeding (11) especially for 
upper gastro-intestinal bleeding in combined VKA and ASS/Clopidogrel therapy (10, 27). 
 Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): 
NSAIDs are associated with a higher risk of gastro-intestinal bleedings. In combination with 
VKAs this risk is increased 11-fold (18, 1). 
 Valproate: 
Valproate (or valproic acid) is used (among other things) as an anti-epileptic drug. 
Important to know is that valproate has an anticoagulant effect and moreover is known to 
interact with the VKA warfarin by displacing it from the protein binding sites resulting in 
significant INR changes (33). 
 
Comorbidities: Chronic kidney disease and chronic liver insufficiency 
Chronic kidney disease and chronic liver insufficiency are known to increase significantly the risk 
of bleeding (14). Therefore it is important to know the renal and hepatic condition of all patients not 
only for the bleeding risk issue but also because drugs as e.g. anticoagulants are specifically 
eliminated by the liver and/or the kidney. So impairment of the kidney and/or liver can cause 
heterogeneous side effects. 
 Definition of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD): 
CKD is defined as abnormalities of kidney structure or function, present for > 3 months, 
with implications for health and CKD is classified based on cause and GFR category. The 
glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is the flow rate of fluid filtered by the kidney and can be 
determined by calculating the creatinine clearance using the Cockroft-Gault formula. A 
GFR of <30 ml/min is an indicator for an insufficient kidney function which is important to 
know because treatment with dabigatran is contraindicated in patients with a GFR of < 30 
ml/min. For more details please check “The Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation 
and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease” (40). 
 
 Definition of Chronic liver insufficiency: 
Abnormal liver function is defined as chronic hepatic disease (e.g. cirrhosis) or biochemical 
evidence of significant hepatic derangement (e.g. bilirubin > 2x upper limit of normal, in 
association with aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase/ alkaline phosphatase 
>3x upper limit normal, and so forth) (22). A treatment with dabigatran or vitamin K-
antagonists is contraindicated in patients with chronic liver insufficiency. 

 
 
 
page 54 of 59 
12.4. 
LEGAL BACKGROUND: DATA PROTECTION 
 
Legal Background 
The  Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC has been repealed by European General Data 
Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679 , as of 27th April 2016, which has already 
entered into force and is effective in all EU Member States from 25th May 2018.  
Generally, the processing of personal data, e.g. concerning health, shall be prohibited 
according to Art. 9 (1), with given exemptions such as Art. 9 (2) j, in cases where processing 
is necessary for scientific research. The data processing shall be allowed if it is proportionate 
in relation to the targeted goal, the person’s rights regarding data protection are preserved and 
appropriate and specific measures are taken in order to protect the basic rights and interests of 
the affected person. Recital No. 53 points out that the processing of personal data for health 
related reasons may be performed if it is necessary in the interest of single natural persons or 
of the society as a whole. This is relevant especially for scientific research purposes, relying 
on legal provisions of the EU or a European member state, which serve as a goal of public 
interest and for studies which are performed in the public interest in the field of public health. 
The Regulation clarifies that personal data may be processed for scientific research purposes 
and, according to Art. 89 (2), Union or Member State law may provide for derogations from 
the subjects’ rights referred to in Art. 15, 16, 18 and 21 – rights for access, rectification, 
restriction of processing and objection – in so far as such rights are likely to render 
impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the research purposes. The processing of 
personal data for scientific research purposes, according to recital No. 156, can be interpreted 
in a broad manner including studies conducted in the public interest in the area of public 
health, also privately funded. To meet the specificities of processing personal data for 
scientific research purposes, specific conditions, regarding publication or otherwise 
disclosure of personal data, shall be applied. Safeguards for the rights and freedoms of the 
persons affected, such as technical and organisational measures, including pseudonymisation, 
ensure respect for the principle of data minimization, Art. 89 (2). 
Generally, the handling of personal data is only allowed after the person concerned has been 
properly informed about all aspects of the data collection and has given his/her written 
consent, Art. 6 (1) a) GDPR, or another justifications for the legality of data processing in the 
GDPR must be applicable, Art. 6 (1) b) – f). According to recital No. 50, the processing of 
personal data for purposes other than those for which the personal data were initially 
collected should be allowed only where the processing is compatible with the purposes for 
which the personal data were initially collected. In particular, processing for scientific 
purposes will be considered to be compatible lawful processing operations, as specified in 
Art. 5 (1) a). In such cases, no legal basis different from that which allowed the collection of 
the personal data shall be required. This applies especially for data which has been collected 
during routine examinations as part of the patient record and which is intended to be assessed 
retrospectively. The principles of data protection shall apply for all information relating to 
identified or identifiable individuals, according to recital No. 26. This also applies to 
pseudonymized personal data, but not to anonymized information.  
As accompanying Member State law, Germany has prepared a completely new version of the 
German Data Protection Law (GDPL), which has also become effective on 25th May 2018.  
According to § 27 (1) GDPL, the processing of certain categories of personal data, e.g. health 
data, is possible for scientific research purposes without prior consent of the subject 
concerned, provided that the processing is required to fulfill this purpose and if the interest of 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 55 of 59 
 
the responsible person regarding the processing substantially prevails the interest of the 
affected person to suspend the data processing. In order to make use of the privilege for 
research purposes, a reasonable weighing of interests needs to be performed and justified. For 
the data processing, § 27 (1) assumes that a legal basis according to Art. 6 GDPR exists, e.g. 
Art. 6 (1) f): legitimate interest of the responsible person (necessity), as long as no prevailing 
fundamental right or freedom of the affected person regarding protection of personal data 
exists. Additionally, the responsible person must foresee appropriate and specific 
measurements for the protection of interests of the affected person. Examples for those 
measurements can be found in Art. 22 (2) 2, No. 1 to 10 GDPR, including pseudonymization, 
encryption etc. Those exceptions are especially important in the field of medical and 
scientific research in order to allow the participation of patients who are incapable to give 
consent due to a medical condition (e.g. stroke) which is to be studied in the research project. 
Within the different types of research projects, a non-interventional study which aims to 
observe the routine use of medicinal products has to be regarded differently from a clinical 
study with a medicinal product in consideration of vital interests of the study participants. 
Like Art. 89 (2) GDPR, § 27 (2) GDPL points out that the subjects’ rights referred to in Art. 
15, 16, 18 and 21 may be restricted in case those rights will presumably preclude or severely 
affect the realization of research purposes and the restriction is considered necessary to 
enable the scientific research. According to § 27 (3) GDPL, personal data shall be 
anonymized as soon as it is permitted by the scientific purpose, except opposed by reasonable 
interest of the affected person. Unless anonymization is possible, those characteristics, which 
enable the correlation of personal information to individual persons, must be retained 
separately and may only be consolidated for the scientific purpose. 
It has to be kept in mind, that the GDPL will be complemented by German federal state law, 
which could possibly install differentiating or more strict regulations. 
 
 

 
 
 
page 56 of 59 
12.5. 
PATIENT INFORMATION AND INFORMED CONSENT 
 
The PRODAST study will be conducted in accordance with the protocol, the principles of 
Good Clinical Practice (GCP), the Declaration of Helsinki as of October 2013 (2013WMA 
2013), the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, guidelines for Good Epidemiological Practice 
(38), Good Pharmacoepidemiologic Practice (39), Good Pharmacovigilance Practices (36) 
Module VIII – Post-authorisation safety studies, GPV Module VIII Addendum I – Member 
States’ requirements for transmission of information on non-interventional post-authorisation 
safety studies, GPV Module VI – Management and reporting of adverse reactions to 
medicinal products, “Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide” (7), and 
local regulations, especially concerning data protection. 
 
According to § 2 (34) of the German Medicine Act (AMG), the safety assessment of a 
medicinal product intended for human use is any trial with an authorized medicinal product 
that will be performed in order to evaluate, describe or quantify a safety risk, to confirm the 
safety profile of the medicinal product or to measure the efficiency of risk management 
systems. On the European level, safety assessment trials of medicinal products with a granted 
marketing authorisation are called Post-Authorisation Safety Studies (PASS) and the legal 
background can be found in the Guidelines of Good Pharmacovigilance Practices (GPV), 
which were implemented by the new pharmacovigilance legislation (Regulation (EU) 
1235/2010 and Directive 2010/84/EU), and in the Good Pharmacovigilance Practice (GPV) 
Module V on Risk management systems and Module VIII on PASS, basing on Art. 108a of 
Directive 2010/84/EU. In Art. 1 Nr. 15 of Directive 2001/83/EC a PASS is defined as “a 
pharmacoepidemiological study or a clinical trial carried out in accordance with the terms of 
the marketing authorisation, conducted with the aim of identifying or quantifying a safety 
hazard relating to an authorized medicinal product”. A fundamental distinction has to be 
made between interventional PASS, which are regarded as clinical studies, and non-
interventional (observational) PASS. In context of a non-interventional PASS, methods such 
as interviews, questionnaires and blood samples may be considered as normal clinical 
practice. 
 
In Germany, safety assessment trials are primarily initialized in order to address safety issues 
of a medicinal product. Generally, a PASS will be mentioned as an additional 
pharmacovigilance measure in the risk management plan (RMP) of the medicinal product. 
For non-interventional safety assessment trials, which will be performed on own initiative of 
the marketing authorisation holder, the notification obligation of § 63 f AMG applies. A 
safety assessment trial, that will be performed independently from the marketing 
authorisation holder, has to be notified to the competent authority by the initiator, according 
to the general notification obligations for observational studies in § 67 (6) AMG.  
 
Information, surveillance plans and final reports on safety assessment trials shall be published 
in the EU-PAS registry (http://www.encepp.eu/) appropriate to the specifications of GPV 
Module VIII. 
 
The investigator should inform the Director of Investigation immediately of any urgent safety 
measures taken to protect the study subjects against any immediate hazard, and also of any 
serious breaches of the observational protocol / ICH GCP (International Conference on 
Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human 
Use) / Declaration of Helsinki. 
 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 57 of 59 
 
12.5.1. 
Patients who are capable of giving their written informed consent or have a 
legal representative 
 
The responsible medical investigator shall decide at baseline (between time point T0 and T1) 
if the stroke patient is capable to give consent by assessing the capacity of discernment and 
ability to judge. The treating physician will confirm in writing, on the informed consent form, 
his positive assessment about the decision-making ability of the patient and capability to give 
informed consent. In case of incapability to consent, all measures shall be taken in order to 
find out about the existence of a legal representative, who can be either a courtly-appointed 
custodian or an authorized representative by health care proxy. It has to be kept in mind, that 
a custodian or proxy agent shall arrange the affairs only for the well-being of the person 
incapable to consent. Therefore it is prohibited to give consent for data processing in a 
research other than for the benefit of the person concerned. The patient or his legal 
representative shall be informed, preferably in advance of the medical treatment and data 
collection, about the intended storage, transmission and assessment of data: The patient or his 
legal representative shall receive complete information about the kind and content of data to 
be collected, especially that sensitive personal and medical data will be used, the reason for 
the data collection in context of the PRODAST study, the performance of data assessment 
and evaluation and the personal involved, the duration of data assessment and storage and 
when the data will be deleted, name and address of the person or institution responsible for 
the research project, the group of people that will be involved in the study and get knowledge 
about the data and all safety measures that will be taken in order to protect the patient data. 
Besides the data collected in the stroke unit, the patient or his legal representative shall be 
informed about a second phase of the study, when more data is going to be collected in a 
central follow-up: Therefore, the patient or his legal representative will be asked to give 
consent to requests by University Hospital Essen, Department of Neurology for additional 
data from general practitioners, hospitals or health care facilities. The patient or his legal 
representative needs to give an authorisation to release from medical confidentiality. 
Furthermore, the patient or his legal representative shall be informed that it is possible to 
withdraw the informed consent at any time without any justification and that neither the 
withdrawal of consent nor the refusal to consent will have any impact on the medical 
treatment. Data handling in case of withdrawal will be performed as described in Section 
12.5.4. The patient or legal representative shall be given enough time for consideration and 
give the consent in writing, personally dated and signed. 
The patient will be informed about the intended storage, transmission and assessment of data 
collected in this non-interventional study either by a treating physician or a trained staff 
member familiar with the study.   
12.5.2. 
Patients who are incapable of giving their written informed consent at time of 
study inclusion (T1) and have no legal representative 
 
Some medical conditions, such as stroke, could result in incapacity of giving an informed 
consent. It is the professional responsibility of the medical investigator to assess the medical 
condition and decision-making ability of the patient. In cases, where it is impossible to obtain 
the informed consent before the start of data collection (time point T1) due to the medical 
condition of the patient who has no legal representative, the medical investigator decides 
about study inclusion. As described in Section 8, the participation and data collection of 
persons incapable of giving consent shall be possible under strict conditions in order to fulfil 
a scientific purpose. Points which have been considered are the scientific question to be 
answered and the purpose of data evaluation: Without participation of patients who are 
incapable of giving an informed consent, data collection would suffer from bias and the study 
would not succeed to display real-life data.  It has been evaluated that, for this study, the 
public interest to use the personal data of those patients for scientific research prevails the 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 58 of 59 
 
interest of the person concerned to keep his data confidential. In order to protect the data of 
patients, strict rules for the technical and organizational handling of the data are put in place.  
The responsible medical investigator will assess the medical condition and decision-making 
ability of the patient and will document in writing the diagnosis of incapability to give 
informed consent and the scientific medical justification for participation in the study.  As 
soon as the patient regains his decision-making ability before discharge from hospital, he/she 
will be asked to give additional consent to the data collection, storage, transmission and 
assessment and to release his medical practitioner from confidentiality. Data will be 
collected, stored, transmitted and assessed also for those patients who are still incapable of 
giving consent for data processing at the time of discharge from hospital.  In order to perform 
the follow-up interview, the investigators at University Hospital Essen will make all 
reasonable efforts to obtain informed consent from the patient himself, in case of capability 
regained after discharge, or from a legal representative appointed in the meantime.  
A detailed procedure for this case is part of the ISF and has been presented to the Ethics 
Committee: It includes additional informed consent forms to be signed and returned to the 
University Hospital Essen (Follow-up centre) as well as prepared self-addressed envelopes 
which will be given to a patient’s close relative/family member. The relative/family member 
will be informed about the study process and involved to support the procedure of obtaining 
the informed consent.  
In case consent in written form is not available by the time of the follow up interview, oral 
consent from the patient or legal representative will be obtained, including detailed 
documentation of the process in accordance with existing standard operating procedures.   
12.5.3. 
Patients who die during hospital stay or after discharge 
 
It has to be distinguished between different situations when the patient might die. 
 Death during stay in hospital 
1) In some cases the patient possibly dies before he/she or his/her legal representative can 
give the informed consent or the responsible medical investigator can draw the diagnosis for 
the patient being incapable to give an informed consent. In this situation, the patient has not 
been included as a study participant, so there will be no reason and justification to collect, 
store, transmit or evaluate any medical data for study purposes.  
2) If the patient dies during the stay in hospital and he/she or the legal representative has 
given informed consent before or the responsible medical investigator has declared the 
patient to be incapable to give an informed consent, all medical data collected up to this point 
will be stored, transmitted and evaluated. No personal data will be forwarded to the 
University Hospital Essen. If personal data has already been sent to the University Hospital 
of Essen, this data will be deleted. 
 
Death after discharge 
 
3) If the patient dies after discharge and he/she or the legal representative has given informed 
consent before or the responsible medical investigator has declared the patient to be incapable 
to give an informed consent, all medical data collected up to this point will be stored, 
transmitted and evaluated.  
a) Informed consent by patient or legal representative covers also the follow-up interview, 
which can be performed with legal representatives and/or family doctors/treating physicians. 

PRODAST v5.0 
 24th September 2018 
page 59 of 59 
 
Vital status (time and place of death) will be requested at the local citizen registry. In case of 
death, details of cause of death after discharge will be requested from the family doctor or 
treating physician. In cases, where information on cause of death cannot be gained otherwise, 
civil registry offices and local health offices will be contacted in order to permit access to 
death certificates. 
b) In cases where the responsible medical investigator has declared incapability of the patient, 
all data collected after the moment of death shall be subject to medical confidentiality and no 
follow-up interview shall be performed. Vital status information will also be requested at 
local citizen registry, but no information on cause of death due to lack of informed consent.    
    
12.5.4. 
Withdrawal of informed consent 
 
The patient or his/her legal representative may withdraw a given informed consent at any 
time. This withdrawal can refer either to personal data or to medical data or to all data. In 
case that withdrawal is restricted to personal data, this data will be deleted, but 
pseudonymized medical data will be used for evaluation. In case that withdrawal is restricted 
to medical data, all medical data collected will be blocked in the database und will not be 
used for evaluation. In case that the informed consent is withdrawn completely, all personal 
data will be deleted and all medical data collected will be blocked in the database und will 
not be used for evaluation.  
The patient may restrict the use of personal or medical data in advance by cancelling parts of 
the informed consent.