Dataset Information

Comparison of Clinical Characteristics Between Clinical Trial Participants and Nonparticipants Using Electronic Health Record Data.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Assessing generalizability of clinical trials is important to ensure appropriate application of interventions, but most assessments provide minimal granularity on comparisons of clinical characteristics.

Objective

To assess the extent of underlying clinical differences between clinical trial participants and nonparticipants by using a combination of electronic health record and trial enrollment data.

Design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional study used data obtained from a single academic medical center between September 1996 and January 2019 to identify 1645 clinical trial participants from a diverse set of 202 available trials conducted at the center. Using an aggregated resampling procedure, nonparticipants were matched to participants 1:1 based on trial conditions, number of recent visits to a health care professional, and calendar time.

Exposures

Clinical trial enrollment vs no enrollment.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was standardized differences in clinical characteristics between participants and nonparticipants in clinical trials stratified into the 4 most common disease domains.

Results

This cross-sectional study included 1645 participants from 202 trials (929 [56.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 54.65 [21.38] years) and an aggregated set of 1645 nonparticipants (855 [52.0%] male; mean [SD] age, 57.24 [21.91] years). The most common disease domains for the selected trials were neoplastic disease (86 trials; 737 participants), disorders of the digestive system (31 trials; 321 participants), inflammatory disorders (28 trials; 276 participants), and disorders of the cardiovascular system (27 trials; 319 participants); trials could qualify for multiple disease domains. Among 31 conditions, the percentage of conditions for which the prevalence was lower among participants than among nonparticipants per standardized differences was 64.5% (20 conditions) for neoplastic disease trials, 61.3% (19) for digestive system trials, 58.1% (18) for inflammatory disorder trials, and 38.7% (12) for cardiovascular system trials. Among 17 medications, the percentage of medications for which use was less among participants than among nonparticipants per standardized differences was 64.7% (11) for neoplastic disease trials, 58.8% (10) for digestive system trials, 88.2% (15) for inflammatory disorder trials, and 52.9% (9) for cardiovascular system trials.

Conclusions and relevance

Using a combination of electronic health record and trial enrollment data, this study found that clinical trial participants had fewer comorbidities and less use of medication than nonparticipants across a variety of disease domains. Combining trial enrollment data with electronic health record data may be useful for better understanding of the generalizability of trial results.

SUBMITTER: Rogers JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8027910 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo present a generalizability assessment method that compares baseline clinical characteristics of trial participants (TP) to potentially eligible (PE) patients as presented in their electronic health record (EHR) data while controlling for clinical setting and recruitment period.MethodsFor each clinical trial, a clinical event was defined to identify patients of interest using available EHR data from one clinical setting during the trial's recruitment timeframe. The trial's eligibility criteria were then applied and patients were separated into two mutually exclusive groups: (1) TP, which were patients that participated in the trial per trial enrollment data; (2) PE, the remaining patients. The primary outcome was standardized differences in clinical characteristics between TP and PE per trial. A standardized difference was considered prominent if its absolute value was greater than or equal to 0.1. The secondary outcome was the difference in mean propensity scores (PS) between TP and PE per trial, in which the PS represented prediction for a patient to be in the trial. Three diverse trials were selected for illustration: one focused on hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients receiving a liver transplantation; one focused on leukemia patients and lymphoma patients; and one focused on appendicitis patients.ResultsFor the HCV trial, 43 TP and 83 PE were found, with 61 characteristics evaluated. Prominent differences were found among 69% of characteristics, with a mean PS difference of 0.13. For the leukemia/lymphoma trial, 23 TP and 23 PE were found, with 39 characteristics evaluated. Prominent differences were found among 82% of characteristics, with a mean PS difference of 0.76. For the appendicitis trial, 123 TP and 242 PE were found, with 52 characteristics evaluated. Prominent differences were found among 52% of characteristics, with a mean PS difference of 0.15.ConclusionsDifferences in clinical characteristics were observed between TP and PE among all three trials. In two of the three trials, not all of the differences necessarily compromised trial generalizability and subsets of PE could be considered similar to their corresponding TP. In the remaining trial, lack of generalizability appeared present, but may be a result of other factors such as small sample size or site recruitment strategy. These inconsistent findings suggest eligibility criteria alone are sometimes insufficient in defining a target group to generalize to. With caveats in limited scalability, EHR data quality, and lack of patient perspective on trial participation, this generalizability assessment method that incorporates control for temporality and clinical setting promise to better pinpoint clinical patterns and trial considerations.

Project description:Accurate, real-time case identification is needed to target interventions to improve quality and outcomes for hospitalized patients with heart failure. Problem lists may be useful for case identification but are often inaccurate or incomplete. Machine-learning approaches may improve accuracy of identification but can be limited by complexity of implementation.To develop algorithms that use readily available clinical data to identify patients with heart failure while in the hospital.We performed a retrospective study of hospitalizations at an academic medical center. Hospitalizations for patients 18 years or older who were admitted after January 1, 2013, and discharged before February 28, 2015, were included. From a random 75% sample of hospitalizations, we developed 5 algorithms for heart failure identification using electronic health record data: (1) heart failure on problem list; (2) presence of at least 1 of 3 characteristics: heart failure on problem list, inpatient loop diuretic, or brain natriuretic peptide level of 500 pg/mL or higher; (3) logistic regression of 30 clinically relevant structured data elements; (4) machine-learning approach using unstructured notes; and (5) machine-learning approach using structured and unstructured data.Heart failure diagnosis based on discharge diagnosis and physician review of sampled medical records.A total of 47?119 hospitalizations were included in this study (mean [SD] age, 60.9 [18.15] years; 23 952 female [50.8%], 5258 black/African American [11.2%], and 3667 Hispanic/Latino [7.8%] patients). Of these hospitalizations, 6549 (13.9%) had a discharge diagnosis of heart failure. Inclusion of heart failure on the problem list (algorithm 1) had a sensitivity of 0.40 and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.96 for heart failure identification. Algorithm 2 improved sensitivity to 0.77 at the expense of a PPV of 0.64. Algorithms 3, 4, and 5 had areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.953, 0.969, and 0.974, respectively. With a PPV of 0.9, these algorithms had associated sensitivities of 0.68, 0.77, and 0.83, respectively.The problem list is insufficient for real-time identification of hospitalized patients with heart failure. The high predictive accuracy of machine learning using free text demonstrates that support of such analytics in future electronic health record systems can improve cohort identification.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether electronic health record alerts for acute kidney injury would improve patient outcomes of mortality, dialysis, and progression of acute kidney injury.DesignDouble blinded, multicenter, parallel, randomized controlled trial.SettingSix hospitals (four teaching and two non-teaching) in the Yale New Haven Health System in Connecticut and Rhode Island, US, ranging from small community hospitals to large tertiary care centers.Participants6030 adult inpatients with acute kidney injury, as defined by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) creatinine criteria.InterventionsAn electronic health record based "pop-up" alert for acute kidney injury with an associated acute kidney injury order set upon provider opening of the patient's medical record.Main outcome measuresA composite of progression of acute kidney injury, receipt of dialysis, or death within 14 days of randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included outcomes at each hospital and frequency of various care practices for acute kidney injury.Results6030 patients were randomized over 22 months. The primary outcome occurred in 653 (21.3%) of 3059 patients with an alert and in 622 (20.9%) of 2971 patients receiving usual care (relative risk 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.13, P=0.67). Analysis by each hospital showed worse outcomes in the two non-teaching hospitals (n=765, 13%), where alerts were associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome (relative risk 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.98, P=0.006). More deaths occurred at these centers (15.6% in the alert group v 8.6% in the usual care group, P=0.003). Certain acute kidney injury care practices were increased in the alert group but did not appear to mediate these outcomes.ConclusionsAlerts did not reduce the risk of our primary outcome among patients in hospital with acute kidney injury. The heterogeneity of effect across clinical centers should lead to a re-evaluation of existing alerting systems for acute kidney injury.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02753751.

Project description:BackgroundDefining clinical phenotypes from electronic health record (EHR)-derived data proves crucial for clinical decision support, population health endeavors, and translational research. EHR diagnoses now commonly draw from a finely grained clinical terminology-either native SNOMED CT or a vendor-supplied terminology mapped to SNOMED CT concepts as the standard for EHR interoperability. Accordingly, electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) increasingly define clinical phenotypes with SNOMED CT value sets. The work of creating and maintaining list-based value sets proves daunting, as does insuring that their contents accurately represent the clinically intended condition.ObjectiveThe goal of the research was to compare an intensional (concept hierarchy-based) versus extensional (list-based) value set approach to defining clinical phenotypes using SNOMED CT-encoded data from EHRs by evaluating value set conciseness, time to create, and completeness.MethodsStarting from published Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) high-priority eCQMs, we selected 10 clinical conditions referenced by those eCQMs. For each, the published SNOMED CT list-based (extensional) value set was downloaded from the Value Set Authority Center (VSAC). Ten corresponding SNOMED CT hierarchy-based intensional value sets for the same conditions were identified within our EHR. From each hierarchy-based intensional value set, an exactly equivalent full extensional value set was derived enumerating all included descendant SNOMED CT concepts. Comparisons were then made between (1) VSAC-downloaded list-based (extensional) value sets, (2) corresponding hierarchy-based intensional value sets for the same conditions, and (3) derived list-based (extensional) value sets exactly equivalent to the hierarchy-based intensional value sets. Value set conciseness was assessed by the number of SNOMED CT concepts needed for definition. Time to construct the value sets for local use was measured. Value set completeness was assessed by comparing contents of the downloaded extensional versus intensional value sets. Two measures of content completeness were made: for individual SNOMED CT concepts and for the mapped diagnosis clinical terms available for selection within the EHR by clinicians.ResultsThe 10 hierarchy-based intensional value sets proved far simpler and faster to construct than exactly equivalent derived extensional value set lists, requiring a median 3 versus 78 concepts to define and 5 versus 37 minutes to build. The hierarchy-based intensional value sets also proved more complete: in comparison, the 10 downloaded 2018 extensional value sets contained a median of just 35% of the intensional value sets' SNOMED CT concepts and 65% of mapped EHR clinical terms.ConclusionsIn the EHR era, defining conditions preferentially should employ SNOMED CT concept hierarchy-based (intensional) value sets rather than extensional lists. By doing so, clinical guideline and eCQM authors can more readily engage specialists in vetting condition subtypes to include and exclude, and streamline broad EHR implementation of condition-specific decision support promoting guideline adherence for patient benefit.