Strategies for secondary use of real-world clinical and administrative data for outcome ascertainment in pragmatic clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic trials are gaining popularity as a cost-effective way to examine treatment effectiveness and generate timely comparative evidence. Incorporating supplementary real-world data is recommended for robust outcome monitoring. However, detailed operational guidelines are needed to inform effective use and integration of heterogeneous databases. OBJECTIVE: Lessons learned from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) are reviewed, providing adaptable recommendations to capture clinical outcomes from real-world data. METHODS: Non-cancer deaths and major cardiovascular (CV) outcomes were determined using VA, Medicare, and National Death Index (NDI) data. Multiple ascertainment strategies were applied, including claims-based algorithms, natural language processing, and systematic chart review. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 2.4 (SD = 1.4) years, 907 CV events were identified within the VA healthcare system. Slight delays (∼1 year) were expected in obtaining Medicare data. An additional 298 patients were found having a CV event outside of the VA in 2016 - 2021, increasing the CV event rate from 3.5 % to 5.7 % (770 of 13,523 randomized). NDI data required âˆ¼2 years waiting period. Such inclusion did not increase the number of deaths identified (all 894 deaths were captured by VA data) but enhanced the accuracy in determining cause of death. CONCLUSION: Our experience supports the recommendation of integrating multiple data sources to improve clinical outcome ascertainment. While this approach is promising, hierarchical data aggregation is required when facing different acquisition timelines, information availability/completeness, coding practice, and system configurations. It may not be feasible to implement comparable applications and solutions to studies conducted under different constraints and practice. The recommendations provide guidance and possible action plans for researchers who are interested in applying cross-source data to ascertain all study outcomes.

The impact of COVID-19 on a large pragmatic clinical trial embedded in primary care.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic had significant impact on clinical care and clinical trial operations, but the impact on decentralized pragmatic trials is unclear. The Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) is a Point-of Care (POC) pragmatic trial testing whether chlorthalidone is superior to hydrochlorothiazide in preventing major cardiovascular (CV) events and non-cancer death. DCP utilized telephone consent, data collection from the electronic health record and Medicare, forwent study visits, and limited provider commitment beyond usual care. We assessed the impact of COVID-19 on recruitment, follow-up, data collection, and outcome ascertainment in DCP. METHODS: We compared data from two 8-month periods: Pre-Pandemic (July 2019-February 2020) and Mid-Pandemic (July 2020-February 2021). Consent and randomization rates, diuretic adherence, blood pressure (BP) and electrolyte follow-up rates, records of CV events, hospitalization, and death rates were compared. RESULTS: Providers participated at a lower rate mid-pandemic (65%) than pre-pandemic (71%), but more patients were contacted (7622 vs. 5363) and consented (3718 vs. 3048) mid-pandemic than pre-pandemic. Patients refilled medications and remained on their randomized diuretic equally (90%) in both periods. Overall, rates of BP, electrolyte measurements, and hospitalizations decreased mid-pandemic while deaths increased. CONCLUSIONS: While recruitment, enrollment, and adherence did not suffer during the pandemic, documented blood pressure checks and laboratory evaluations decreased, likely due to fewer in-person visits. VA hospitalizations decreased, despite a considerable number of COVID-related hospitalizations. This suggests changes in clinical care during the pandemic, but the limited impact on DCP's operations during a global pandemic is an important strength of POC trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02185417.

Practical issues in pragmatic trials: the implementation of the Diuretic Comparison Project.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The US Department of Veterans Affairs Point of Care Clinical Trial Program conducts studies that utilize informatics infrastructure to integrate clinical trial protocols into routine care delivery. The Diuretic Comparison Project compared hydrochlorothiazide to chlorthalidone in reduction of major cardiovascular events in subjects with hypertension. Here we describe the cultural, technical, regulatory, and logistical challenges and solutions that enabled successful implementation of this large pragmatic comparative effectiveness Point of Care clinical trial. METHODS: Patients were recruited from 72 Veterans Affairs Healthcare Systems using centralized processes for subject identification, obtaining informed consent, data collection, safety monitoring, site communication, and endpoint identification with minimal perturbation of the local clinical care ecosystem. Patients continued to be managed exclusively by their clinical care providers without protocol specified study visits, treatment recommendations, or data collection extraneous to routine care. Centralized study processes were operationalized through the application layer of the electronic health record via a data coordinating center staffed by clinical nurses, data scientists, and statisticians without site-based research coordinators. Study data was collected from the Veterans Affairs electronic health record supplemented by Medicare and National Death Index data. RESULTS: The study exceeded its enrolled goal (13,523 subjects) and followed subjects for the 5-year study duration. The key determinant of program success was collaboration between researchers, regulators, clinicians, and administrative staff at the site level to customize study procedures to align with local clinical practice. This flexibility was enabled by designation of the study as minimal risk and determination that clinical care providers were not engaged in research by the Veterans Affairs Central Institutional Review Board. Cultural, regulatory, technical, and logistical problems were identified and solved through iterative collaboration between clinical and research entities. Paramount among these problems was customization of the Veterans Affairs electronic health record and data systems to accommodate study procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Leveraging clinical care for large-scale clinical trials is feasible but requires a rethinking of traditional clinical trial design (and regulation) to better meet requirements of clinical care ecosystems. Study designs must accommodate site-specific practice variation to reduce the impact on clinical care. A tradeoff thus exists between designing trial processes tailored to expedite local study implementation versus those to produce a more refined response to the research question. The availability of a uniform and flexible electronic health record in the Department of Veterans Affairs played a major role in the success of the trial. Conducting Point of Care research in other healthcare systems without such research-friendly infrastructure presents a more formidable challenge.