Dataset Information

Using routinely recorded data in a UK RCT: a comparison to standard prospective data collection methods.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Routinely recorded data held in electronic health records can be used to inform the conduct of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, limitations with access and accuracy have been identified.

Objective

Using epilepsy as an exemplar condition, we assessed the attributes and agreement of routinely recorded data compared to data collected using case report forms in a UK RCT assessing antiepileptic drug treatments for individuals newly diagnosed with epilepsy.

Methods

The case study RCT is the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II) trial, a pragmatic, UK multicentre RCT assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drugs as treatments for epilepsy. Ninety-eight of 470 eligible participants provided consent for access to routinely recorded secondary care data that were retrieved from NHS Digital Hospital Episode Statistics (N=71) and primary and secondary care data from The Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (N=27). We assessed data items relevant to the identification of individuals eligible for inclusion in SANAD II, baseline and follow-up visits. The attributes of routinely recorded data were assessed including the degree of missing data. The agreement between routinely recorded data and data collected on case report forms in SANAD II was assessed using calculation of Cohen's kappa for categorical data and construction of Bland-Altman plots for continuous data.

Results

There was a significant degree of missing data in the routine record for 15 of the 20 variables assessed, including all clinical variables. Agreement was poor for the majority of comparisons, including the assessments of seizure occurrence and adverse events. For example, only 23/62 (37%) participants had a date of first-ever seizure identified in routine datasets. Agreement was satisfactory for the date of prescription of antiepileptic drugs and episodes of healthcare resource use.

Conclusions

There are currently significant limitations preventing the use of routinely recorded data for participant identification and assessment of clinical outcomes in epilepsy, and potentially other chronic conditions. Further research is urgently required to assess the attributes, agreement, additional benefits, cost-effectiveness and 'optimal mix' of routinely recorded data compared to data collected using standard methods such as case report forms at clinic visits for people with epilepsy.

Trial registration

Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II (EudraCT No: 2012-001884-64, registered 05/09/2012; ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN30294119 , registered 03/07/2012)).

SUBMITTER: Powell GA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8259387 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the UK, routinely recorded data may benefit prospective studies including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In an on-going study, we aim to assess the feasibility of access and agreement of routinely recorded clinical and non-clinical data compared to data collected during a RCT using standard prospective methods. This paper will summarise available UK routinely recorded data sources and discuss our experience with the feasibility of accessing routinely recorded data for participants of a RCT before finally proposing recommendations for improving the access and implementation of routinely recorded data in RCTs. METHODS:Setting: the case study RCT is the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II) trial, a pragmatic, UK, multicentre, phase IV RCT assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drug treatments for newly diagnosed epilepsy. PARTICIPANTS:98 participants have provided written consent to permit the request of routinely recorded data. Study procedures: routinely recorded clinical and non-clinical data were identified and data requested through formal applications from available data holders for the duration that participants have been recruited into SANAD II. The feasibility of accessing routinely recorded data during a RCT is assessed and recommendations for improving access proposed. RESULTS:Secondary-care clinical and socioeconomic data is recorded on a national basis and can be accessed, although there are limitations in the application process. Primary-care data are recorded by a number of organisations on a de-identified basis but access for specific individuals has not been feasible. Access to data recorded by non-clinical sources, including The Department for Work and Pensions and The Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency, was not successful. CONCLUSIONS:Recommendations discussed include further research to assess the attributes of routinely recorded data, an assessment of public perceptions and the development of strategies to collaboratively improve access to routinely recorded data for research. TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN30294119 . Registered on 3 July 2012. EudraCT No: 2012-001884-64. Registered on 9 May 2012.

Project description:IntroductionNecrotising enterocolitis (NEC) remains a major contributor to preterm mortality and morbidity. Prolonged duration of antibiotic therapy after delivery is associated with later NEC development but recent evidence suggests that absence of antibiotic treatment after delivery may also increase NEC risk. We will explore this controversy using a large pre-existing dataset of preterm infants in the UK.Methods and analysisThis is a retrospective cohort study using data from UK National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD) for infants born 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2020. Eligible infants will be <32 weeks gestation, alive on day 3. Primary outcome is development of severe NEC, compared in infants receiving early antibiotics (days 1-2 after birth) and those not. Subgroup analysis on duration of early antibiotic exposure will also occur. Secondary outcomes are: late onset sepsis, total antibiotic use, predischarge mortality, retinopathy of prematurity, intraventricular haemorrhage, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, focal intestinal perforation and any abdominal surgery. To address competing risks, incidence of death before day 7, 14 and 28 will be analysed. We will perform logistic regression and propensity score matched analyses. Statistical analyses will be guided by NEC risk factors, exposures and outcome presented in a causal diagram. These covariates include but are not limited to gestational age, birth weight, small for gestational age, sex, ethnicity, delivery mode, delivery without labour, Apgar score, early feeding and probiotic use. Sensitivity analyses of alternate NEC definitions, specific antibiotics and time of initiation will occur.Ethics and disseminationWe will use deidentified data from NNRD, which holds permissions for the original data, from which parents can opt out and seek study-specific research ethics approval. The results will help to determine optimal use of early antibiotics for very preterm infants.ImplicationsThis data will help optimise early antibiotic use in preterm infants.Trial registration numberISRCTN55101779.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical 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. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review of RCTs accessing RCHD from at least one registry in the UK between 2013 and 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 were undertaken between January and May 2019. RESULTS:We 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 (about 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. CONCLUSIONS:In 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019123088.