scholarly journals Accessing routinely collected health data to improve clinical trials: recent experience of access

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Archie Macnair ◽  
Sharon B. Love ◽  
Macey L. Murray ◽  
Duncan C. Gilbert ◽  
Mahesh K. B. Parmar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Access ◽  
Cancer Registration ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
Application Process ◽  
Multiple Data ◽  
Routinely Collected Health Data ◽  
Clinical Trials Unit ◽  
Patch Trial ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Routinely collected electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to enhance randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by facilitating recruitment and follow-up. Despite this, current EHR use is minimal in UK RCTs, in part due to ongoing concerns about the utility (reliability, completeness, accuracy) and accessibility of the data. The aim of this manuscript is to document the process, timelines and challenges of the application process to help improve the service both for the applicants and data holders. Methods This is a qualitative paper providing a descriptive narrative from one UK clinical trials unit (MRC CTU at UCL) on the experience of two trial teams’ application process to access data from three large English national datasets: National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) and NHS Digital to establish themes for discussion. The underpinning reason for applying for the data was to compare EHRs with data collected through case report forms in two RCTs, Add-Aspirin (ISRCTN 74358648) and PATCH (ISRCTN 70406718). Results The Add-Aspirin trial, which had a pre-planned embedded sub-study to assess EHR, received data from NCRAS 13 months after the first application. In the PATCH trial, the decision to request data was made whilst the trial was recruiting. The study received data after 8 months from NICOR and 15 months for NHS Digital following final application submission. This concluded in May 2020. Prior to application submission, significant time and effort was needed particularly in relation to the PATCH trial where negotiations over consent and data linkage took many years. Conclusions Our experience demonstrates that data access can be a prolonged and complex process. This is compounded if multiple data sources are required for the same project. This needs to be factored in when planning to use EHR within RCTs and is best considered prior to conception of the trial. Data holders and researchers are endeavouring to simplify and streamline the application process so that the potential of EHR can be realised for clinical trials.

scholarly journals Use of routinely collected data in a UK cohort of publicly funded randomised clinical trials

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 323
Author(s):  
Andrew J. McKay ◽  
Ashley P. Jones ◽  
Carrol L. Gamble ◽  
Andrew J. Farmer ◽  
Paula R. Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Sole Source ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Publicly Funded ◽  
Routinely Collected Data ◽  
Routinely Collected Health Data ◽  
Outcome Information ◽  
Service Resource ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Health Service Resource

Routinely collected data about health in medical records, registries and hospital activity statistics is now routinely collected in an electronic form. The extent to which such sources of data are now being routinely accessed to deliver efficient clinical trials, is unclear. The aim of this study was to ascertain current practice amongst a United Kingdom (UK) cohort of recently funded and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in relation to sources and use of routinely collected outcome data. Recently funded and ongoing RCTs were identified for inclusion by searching the National Institute for Health Research journals library. Trials that have a protocol available were assessed for inclusion and those that use or plan to use routinely collected health data (RCHD) for at least one outcome were included. RCHD sources and outcome information were extracted. Of 216 RCTs, 102 (47%) planned to use RCHD. A RCHD source was the sole source of outcome data for at least one outcome in 46 (45%) of those 102 trials. The most frequent sources are Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS), with the most common outcome data to be extracted being on mortality, hospital admission, and health service resource use. Our study has found that around half of publicly funded trials in a UK cohort (NIHR HTA funded trials that had a protocol available) plan to collect outcome data from routinely collected data sources.

scholarly journals Challenges in accessing routinely collected data from multiple providers in the UK for primary studies: Managing the morass.

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona V Lugg-Widger ◽  
Lianna Angel ◽  
Rebecca Cannings-John ◽  
Kerenza Hood ◽  
Kathryn Hughes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Access ◽  
Application Process ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Routinely Collected Data ◽  
Multiple Data ◽  
Linkage Methods ◽  
Data Application ◽  
Study Population ◽  
The Uk

IntroductionResearchers are increasingly using routinely collected data in addition to, or instead of, other data collection methods. The UK government continues to invest in research centres to encourage use of these data, and trials and cohort studies utilise data linkage methods in the follow-up of participants. This does not come without its limitations and challenges, such as data access delays. ObjectiveThis paper outlines the challenges faced by three projects utilising individual-level routinely-collected linked data for the longer-term follow-up of participants. MethodsThese studies are varied in design, study population and data providers. One researcher was common to the three studies and collated relevant study correspondence, formal documentary evidence such as data sharing agreements and, where relevant, meeting records to review. Key themes were identified and reviewed by other members of the research teams. Mitigating strategies were identified and discussed with a data provider representative and a broader group of researchers to finalise the recommendations presented. ResultsThe challenges discussed are grouped into five themes: Data application process; Project timelines; Dependencies and considerations related to consent; Information Governance; Contractual. In presenting our results descriptively we summarise each case study, identify the main cross-cutting themes and consider the potential for mitigation of challenges. ConclusionsWe make recommendations that identify responsibilities for both researchers and data providers for mitigating and managing data access challenges. A continued conversation within the research community and with data providers is needed to continue to enable researchers to access and utilise the wealth of routinely-collected data available. The suggestions made in this paper will help researchers be better prepared to deal with the challenges of applying for data from multiple data providers.

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 Use of routinely collected data in a UK cohort of publicly funded randomised clinical trials

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 323
Author(s):  
Andrew J. McKay ◽  
Ashley P. Jones ◽  
Carrol L. Gamble ◽  
Andrew J. Farmer ◽  
Paula R. Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Sole Source ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Publicly Funded ◽  
Routinely Collected Data ◽  
Routinely Collected Health Data ◽  
Service Resource ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Routinely collected data about health in medical records, registries and hospital activity statistics is now routinely collected in an electronic form. The extent to which such sources of data are now being routinely accessed to deliver efficient clinical trials, is unclear. The aim of this study was to ascertain current practice amongst a United Kingdom (UK) cohort of recently funded and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in relation to sources and use of routinely collected outcome data. Recently funded and ongoing RCTs were identified for inclusion by searching the National Institute for Health Research journals library. Trials that have a protocol available were assessed for inclusion and those that use or plan to use routinely collected health data for at least one outcome were included. Routinely collected data sources and outcome information were extracted. A total of 279 studies were identified with 102 eligible for data extraction. An Electronic Health Record (EHR) was the sole source of outcome data for at least one outcome in 46 trials. The most frequent sources are Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS), with the most common outcome data to be extracted being on mortality, hospital admission, and health service resource use. Our study has found that around half of publicly funded trials in a UK cohort plan to collect outcome data from routinely collected data sources. This is much higher than the figure of 8% found in a cohort of 189 RCTs published since 2000, the majority of were carried out in North America (McCord et al., 2019).

scholarly journals Use of routinely collected data in a UK cohort of publicly funded randomised clinical trials

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 323
Author(s):  
Andrew J. McKay ◽  
Ashley P. Jones ◽  
Carrol L. Gamble ◽  
Andrew J. Farmer ◽  
Paula R. Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Sole Source ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Publicly Funded ◽  
Routinely Collected Data ◽  
Routinely Collected Health Data ◽  
Outcome Information ◽  
Service Resource ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Health Service Resource

Routinely collected data about health in medical records, registries and hospital activity statistics is now routinely collected in an electronic form. The extent to which such sources of data are now being routinely accessed to deliver efficient clinical trials, is unclear. The aim of this study was to ascertain current practice amongst a United Kingdom (UK) cohort of recently funded and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in relation to sources and use of routinely collected outcome data. Recently funded and ongoing RCTs were identified for inclusion by searching the National Institute for Health Research journals library. Trials that have a protocol available were assessed for inclusion and those that use or plan to use routinely collected health data (RCHD) for at least one outcome were included. RCHD sources and outcome information were extracted. Of 216 RCTs, 102 (47%) planned to use RCHD. A RCHD source was the sole source of outcome data for at least one outcome in 46 (45%) of those 102 trials. The most frequent sources are Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Office for National Statistics (ONS), with the most common outcome data to be extracted being on mortality, hospital admission, and health service resource use. Our study has found that around half of publicly funded trials in a UK cohort (NIHR HTA funded trials that had a protocol available) plan to collect outcome data from routinely collected data sources. This is much higher than the figure of 8% found in a cohort of 189 RCTs published since 2000, the majority of which were carried out in North America (McCord et al., 2019).

scholarly journals Rationalisations for women-only randomised controlled trials in conditions that affect both sexes: a scoping review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e043370
Author(s):  
Ainsley Matthewson ◽  
Olena Bereznyakova ◽  
Brian Dewar ◽  
Alexandra Davis ◽  
Mark Fedyk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Theory Approach ◽  
Reference Centre ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionWomen have historically been under-represented in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including many landmark RCTs that established standards of care. In light of this fact, some modern researchers are calling for replication of earlier landmark trials with women only. This approach is ethically concerning, in that it would require some enrolled women to be deprived of treatments that are currently considered standard of care.ObjectiveIn an attempt to better understand the justification of a women-only approach to designing clinical trials, this study looks to systematically categorise the number of women-only RCTs for conditions that affect both men and women and the reasons given within the medical and philosophical literatures to perform them.MethodologyThis scoping review of the literature will search, screen and select articles based on predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria, after which a grounded theory approach will be used to synthesise the data. It is expected that there will be a variety of reasons given for why a women-only trial may be justified. Electronic databases that will be searched include MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Web of Science Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov, Philosopher’s Index, Phil Papers, JSTOR, Periodicals Archive Online, Project MUSE and the National Reference Centre for Bioethics.SignificanceThe scope of this study is to determine published rationales used to justify women-only randomised trials, both in the case of new trials and in the repetition of landmark trials.Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics board approval is not required for this study as there is no participant involvement. Results will be published as a stand-alone manuscript and will inform a larger project related to the ethics of a women-only RCT of carotid intervention for women with symptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis.

scholarly journals Monitoring advances including consent: learning from COVID-19 trials and other trials running in UKCRC registered clinical trials units during the pandemic

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon B. Love ◽  
Emma Armstrong ◽  
Carrie Bayliss ◽  
Melanie Boulter ◽  
Lisa Fox ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Remote Monitoring ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Monitoring Task ◽  
Critical Data ◽  
Site Monitoring ◽  
Clinical Trials Unit ◽  
Third Person ◽  
Trial Monitoring ◽  
The Uk

AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic has affected how clinical trials are managed, both within existing portfolios and for the rapidly developed COVID-19 trials. Sponsors or delegated organisations responsible for monitoring trials have needed to consider and implement alternative ways of working due to the national infection risk necessitating restricted movement of staff and public, reduced clinical staff resource as research staff moved to clinical areas, and amended working arrangements for sponsor and sponsor delegates as staff moved to working from home.Organisations have often worked in isolation to fast track mitigations required for the conduct of clinical trials during the pandemic; this paper describes many of the learnings from a group of monitoring leads based in United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Unit (CTUs) within the UK.The UKCRC Monitoring Task and Finish Group, comprising monitoring leads from 9 CTUs, met repeatedly to identify how COVID-19 had affected clinical trial monitoring. Informed consent is included as a specific issue within this paper, as review of completed consent documentation is often required within trial monitoring plans (TMPs). Monitoring is defined as involving on-site monitoring, central monitoring or/and remote monitoring.Monitoring, required to protect the safety of the patients and the integrity of the trial and ensure the protocol is followed, is often best done by a combination of central, remote and on-site monitoring. However, if on-site monitoring is not possible, workable solutions can be found using only central or central and remote monitoring. eConsent, consent by a third person, or via remote means is plausible. Minimising datasets to the critical data reduces workload for sites and CTU staff. Home working caused by COVID-19 has made electronic trial master files (TMFs) more inviting. Allowing sites to book and attend protocol training at a time convenient to them has been successful and worth pursuing for trials with many sites in the future.The arrival of COVID-19 in the UK has forced consideration of and changes to how clinical trials are conducted in relation to monitoring. Some developed practices will be useful in other pandemics and others should be incorporated into regular use.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document