scholarly journals Access to routinely collected health data for clinical trials – review of successful data requests to UK registries

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Lensen ◽  
Archie Macnair ◽  
Sharon B Love ◽  
Victoria Yorke-Edwards ◽  
Nurulamin M Noor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
Routinely Collected Health Data ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Uk

ABSTRACTBackgroundClinical trials generally each collect their own data despite routinely-collected health data (RCHD) increasing in quality and breadth. Our aim is to quantify UK-based randomised controlled trials (RCTs) accessing RCHD for participant data, characterise how these data are used and thereby recommend how more trials could use RCHD.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of RCTs accessing RCHD from at least one registry in the UK between 2013-2018, for the purposes of informing or supplementing participant data. A list of all registries holding RCHD in the UK was compiled. In cases where registries published release registers, these were searched for RCTs accessing RCHD. Where no release register was available, registries were contacted to request a list of RCTs. For each identified RCT, information was collected from all publicly available sources (release registers, websites, protocol etc.). The search and data extraction was undertaken between Jan-2019 and May-2019.ResultsWe identified 160 RCTs accessing RCHD between 2013 and 2018 from a total of 22 registries; this corresponds to only a very small proportion of all UK RCTs (approximately 3%). RCTs accessing RCHD were generally large (median sample size 1590), commonly evaluating treatments for cancer or cardiovascular disease. Most of the included RCTs accessed RCHD from NHS Digital (68%), and the most frequently accessed datasets were mortality (76%) and hospital visits (55%). RCHD was used to inform the primary trial (82%) and long-term follow-up (57%). There was substantial variation in how RCTs used RCHD to inform participant outcome measures. A limitation was the lack of information and transparency from registries and RCTs with respect to which datasets have been accessed and for what purposes.ConclusionsIn the last five years, only a small minority of UK-based RCTs have accessed RCHD to inform participant data. We ask for improved accessibility, confirmed data quality and joined up thinking between the registries and the regulatory authorities.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42019123088

scholarly journals Why are feasibility studies accessing routinely collected health data? A systematic review

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 815
Author(s):  
Aziza Mirza ◽  
Victoria Yorke-Edwards ◽  
Sarah Lensen ◽  
Macey L. Murray ◽  
Carlos Diaz-Montana ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Feasibility Studies ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Patient Recruitment ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
Routinely Collected Health Data ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Uk ◽  
National Databases

Background: Feasibility trials are often undertaken to determine whether a larger randomised controlled trial (RCT) is achievable. In a recent review, 15 feasibility trials accessed routinely collected health data (RCHD) from UK national databases and registries. This paper looks at attributes of these trials and the reasons why they accessed RCHD.  Methods: We extracted data from all publicly available sources for the 15 feasibility studies found in a previous review of trials successfully accessing RCHD in the UK between 2013–2018 for the purpose of informing or supplementing participant data. We extracted trial characteristics, the registry accessed, and the way the RCHD was used.  Results: The 15 feasibility RCTs were conducted in a variety of disease areas, and were generally small (median sample size 100, range 41–4061) and individually randomised (60%, 9/15). The primary trial outcome was predominantly administrative (non-clinical) (80%, 12/15) such as feasibility of patient recruitment. They were more likely to recruit from secondary care (67%, 10/15) settings than primary (33%, 5/15).  NHS Digital was the most commonly accessed registry (33% (5/15)) with SAIL databank (20% (3/15)), electronic Data Research and Innovation Service (eDRIS) and Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network (PICANET) (each 13% 2/15) also being accessed. Where the information was clear, the trials used RCHD for data collection during the trial (47%, 7/15), follow-up after the trial (27%, 4/15) and recruitment (13%, 2/15).  Conclusions: Between 2013 and 2018, 15 feasibility trials successfully accessed UK RCHD. Feasibility trials would benefit, as with other trials, from guidance on reporting the use of RCHD in protocols and publications.

scholarly journals Disability improvement as a clinically relevant outcome in clinical trials of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis

2021 ◽  
pp. 135245852110002
Author(s):  
Bruce AC Cree ◽  
Jeffrey A Cohen ◽  
Anthony T Reder ◽  
Davorka Tomic ◽  
Diego Silva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Therapeutic Benefit ◽  
Disease Modifying Therapies ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Switch Group ◽  
Relevant Outcome

Background: Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) can reduce the risk of disability worsening in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (RMS). High-efficacy DMTs can lead to confirmed or sustained disability improvement (CDI and SDI). Objective and Methods: Post hoc analyses of data from the TRANSFORMS, FREEDOMS, and FREEDOMS II trials and their extensions assessed the effects of fingolimod (0.5–1.25 mg/day) on stabilizing or improving disability over ⩽8 years in participants with RMS. CDI and SDI rates were compared between participants initially randomized to fingolimod, interferon (IFNβ-1a), or placebo. Results: At 8 years’ follow-up in TRANSFORMS, 35.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.2%–43.1%) of assessed participants in the IFNβ-1a–fingolimod switch group and 41.9% (36.6%–47.6%) on continuous fingolimod experienced CDI; disability did not worsen in approximately 70%. Similar results were seen in the combined FREEDOMS population. Proportionally fewer TRANSFORMS participants achieved SDI in the IFNβ-1a–fingolimod switch group than on continuous fingolimod (5.4% [3.0%–9.5%] vs 14.2% [10.8%–18.4%], p = 0.01). Conclusion: CDI and SDI are outcomes of interest for clinical trials and for long-term follow-up of participants with RMS. Monitoring CDI and SDI in addition to disability worsening may facilitate understanding of the therapeutic benefit of RMS treatments.

No mesh versus mesh in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: prospective, randomised, controlled trial, long-term follow-up

2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (10) ◽  
pp. 1839-1844
Author(s):  
José Tadeu Nunes Tamanini ◽  
Leonardo Oliveira Reis ◽  
Mirce Milhomem da Mota Tamanini ◽  
Rodrigo Aquino Castro ◽  
Marair Gracio Ferreira Sartori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Vaginal Wall ◽  
Anterior Vaginal Wall ◽  
Anterior Vaginal Wall Prolapse ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Randomised Controlled
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document