Clinical trial results in context: comparison of baseline characteristics and outcomes of 38,510 RECOVERY trial participants versus a reference population of 346,271 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials are essential to reliably assess medical interventions. Nevertheless, interpretation of such studies, particularly when considering absolute effects, is enhanced by understanding how the trial population may differ from the populations it aims to represent. METHODS: We compared baseline characteristics and mortality of RECOVERY participants recruited in England (n = 38,510) with a reference population hospitalised with COVID-19 in England (n = 346,271) from March 2020 to November 2021. We used linked hospitalisation and mortality data for both cohorts to extract demographics, comorbidity/frailty scores, and crude and age- and sex-adjusted 28-day all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Demographics of RECOVERY participants were broadly similar to the reference population, but RECOVERY participants were younger (mean age [standard deviation]: RECOVERY 62.6 [15.3] vs reference 65.7 [18.5] years) and less frequently female (37% vs 45%). Comorbidity and frailty scores were lower in RECOVERY, but differences were attenuated after age stratification. Age- and sex-adjusted 28-day mortality declined over time but was similar between cohorts across the study period (RECOVERY 23.7% [95% confidence interval: 23.3-24.1%]; vs reference 24.8% [24.6-25.0%]), except during the first pandemic wave in the UK (March-May 2020) when adjusted mortality was lower in RECOVERY. CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted 28-day mortality in RECOVERY was similar to a nationwide reference population of patients admitted with COVID-19 in England during the same period but varied substantially over time in both cohorts. Therefore, the absolute effect estimates from RECOVERY were broadly applicable to the target population at the time but should be interpreted in the light of current mortality estimates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN50189673- Feb. 04, 2020, NCT04381936- May 11, 2020.

Getting our ducks in a row: The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS. METHODS-AND-RESULTS: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status. DISCUSSION: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.

Impact of outcome adjudication in kidney disease trials: observations from the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP).

Introduction: We aimed to assess opportunities for trial streamlining and the scientific impact of adjudication on kidney and cardiovascular outcomes in CKD. Methods: We analysed the effects of adjudication of ~2100 maintenance kidney replacement therapy (KRT) and ~1300 major atherosclerotic events (MAEs) recorded in SHARP. We first compared outcome classification before versus after adjudication, and then re-ran randomised comparisons using pre-adjudicated follow-up data. Results: For maintenance KRT, adjudication had little impact with only 1% of events being refuted (28/2115). Consequently, randomised comparisons using pre-adjudication reports found almost identical results (pre-adjudication: simvastatin/ezetimibe 1038 vs placebo 1077; risk ratio [RR] 0.95, 95%CI 0.88-1.04; post-adjudicated: 1057 vs 1084; RR=0.97, 95%CI 0.89-1.05). For MAEs, about one-quarter of patient reports were refuted (324/1275 [25%]), and reviewing 3538 other potential vascular events and death reports identified only 194 additional MAEs. Nevertheless, randomised analyses using SHARP's pre-adjudicated data alone found similar results to analyses based on adjudicated outcomes (pre-adjudication: 573 vs 702; RR=0.80, 95%CI 0.72-0.89; adjudicated: 526 vs 619; RR=0.83, 95%CI 0.74- 0.94), and also suggested refuted MAEs were likely to represent atherosclerotic disease (RR for refuted MAEs=0.80, 95%CI 0.65-1.00). Conclusions: These analyses provide three key insights. First, they provide a rationale for nephrology trials not to adjudicate maintenance KRT. Secondly, when an event that mimics an atherosclerotic outcome is not expected to be influenced by the treatment under study (e.g. heart failure), the aim of adjudicating atherosclerotic outcomes should be to remove such events. Lastly, restrictive definitions for the remaining suspected atherosclerotic outcomes may reduce statistical power.

Reliability of major bleeding events in UK routine data versus clinical trial adjudicated follow-up data.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how reliable UK routine data are for ascertaining major bleeding events compared with adjudicated follow-up. METHODS: The ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes) primary prevention trial randomised 15 480 UK people with diabetes to aspirin versus matching placebo. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (including intracranial haemorrhage, sight-threatening eye bleeding, serious gastrointestinal bleeding and other major bleeding (epistaxis, haemoptysis, haematuria, vaginal and other bleeding)) ascertained by direct-participant mail-based follow-up, with >90% of outcomes undergoing adjudication. Nearly all participants were linked to routinely collected hospitalisation and death data (ie, routine data). An algorithm categorised bleeding events from routine data as major/minor. Kappa statistics were used to assess agreement between data sources, and randomised comparisons were re-run using routine data. RESULTS: When adjudicated follow-up and routine data were compared, there was agreement for 318 major bleeding events, with routine data identifying 281 additional-potential events, and not identifying 241 participant-reported events (kappa 0.53, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.57). Repeating ASCEND's randomised comparisons using routine data only found estimated relative and absolute effects of allocation to aspirin versus placebo on major bleeding similar to adjudicated follow-up (adjudicated follow-up: aspirin 314 (4.1%) vs placebo 245 (3.2%); rate ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.52; absolute excess +6.3/5000 person-years (mean SE±2.1); vs routine data: 327 (4.2%) vs 272 (3.5%); RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.41; absolute excess +5.0/5000 (±2.2)). CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of the ASCEND randomised trial found that major bleeding events ascertained via UK routine data sources provided relative and absolute treatment effects similar to adjudicated follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN60635500; NCT00135226.

Comparison of the Accuracy and Completeness of Records of Serious Vascular Events in Routinely Collected Data vs Clinical Trial-Adjudicated Direct Follow-up Data in the UK: Secondary Analysis of the ASCEND Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Routinely collected data could substantially decrease the cost of conducting trials. Objective: To assess the accuracy and completeness of UK routine data for ascertaining serious vascular events (SVEs) compared with adjudicated follow-up data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. From June 24, 2005, to July 28, 2011, the ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events in Diabetes) primary prevention trial used mail-based methods to randomize people with diabetes without evidence of atherosclerotic vascular disease using a 2 × 2 factorial design to aspirin and/or ω-fatty acids vs matching placebo in the UK. Direct participant mail-based follow-up was the main source of outcome data, with more than 90% of the primary outcome events undergoing adjudication. Follow-up was completed on July 31, 2017. In parallel, more than 99% of participants were linked to routinely collected hospital admission and death registry data (ie, routine data), enabling post hoc randomized comparisons of different sources of outcome data (conducted from September 1, 2018, to October 1, 2021). Interventions: Random allocation to 100 mg of aspirin once daily vs matching placebo and separately to 1 g of ω-3 fatty acids once daily vs placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome consisted of SVEs (a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack [TIA], or vascular death, excluding hemorrhagic stroke). Results: A total of 15 480 participants were randomized (mean [SD] age, 63 [9] years; 9684 [62.6%] men) and followed up for a mean (SD) of 7.4 (1.8) years. For SVEs, agreement between adjudicated direct follow-up and routine data sources was strong (1401 vs 1127 events; κ = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.76-0.80]; sensitivity, 72.0% [95% CI, 69.7%-74.4%]; specificity, 99.2% [95% CI, 99.0%-99.3%]), and sensitivity improved for SVEs excluding transient ischemic attack (1129 vs 1026 events; sensitivity, 80.6% [95% CI, 78.3%-82.9%]). Rate ratios for the aspirin-randomized comparison for adjudicated direct follow-up vs follow-up solely through routine data alone were 0.88 (95% CI, 0.79-0.97) vs 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.02) for the primary outcome and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.82-1.03) vs 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80-1.02) for SVEs excluding TIA. Results were similar for the ω-3 fatty acid comparison, and adjudication did not seem to markedly change rate ratios. Conclusions and Relevance: Post hoc analyses of the ASCEND trial suggest that routinely collected hospital admission and death registry data in the UK could be used as the sole method of follow-up for myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke resulting in hospitalization, vascular death, and arterial revascularization in primary prevention cardiovascular trials, without the need for verification by clinical adjudication.

Accelerometer-measured physical activity and functional behaviours among people on dialysis.

BACKGROUND: The feasibility of wrist-worn accelerometers, and the patterns and determinants of physical activity, among people on dialysis are uncertain. METHODS: People on maintenance dialysis were fitted with a wrist-worn AxivityAX3 accelerometer. Subsets also wore a 14-day electrocardiograph patch (Zio®PatchXT) and wearable cameras. Age-, sex- and season-matched UK Biobank control groups were derived for comparison. RESULTS: Median (interquartile range) accelerometer wear time for the 101 recruits was 12.5 (10.4-13.5) days, of which 73 participants (mean age 66.5 years) had excellent wear on both dialysis and non-dialysis days. Mean (standard error) overall physical activity levels were 15.5 (0.7) milligravity units (mg), 14.8 (0.7) mg on dialysis days versus 16.2 (0.8) mg on non-dialysis days. This compared with 28.1 (0.5) mg for apparently healthy controls, 23.4 (0.4) mg for controls with prior cardiovascular disease (CVD) and/or diabetes mellitus and 22.9 (0.6) mg for heart failure controls. Each day, we estimated that those on dialysis spent an average of about 1 hour (h/day) walking, 0.6 h/day engaging in moderate-intensity activity, 0.7 h/day on light tasks, 13.2 h/day sedentary and 8.6 h/day asleep. Older age and self-reported leg weakness were associated with decreased levels of physical activity, but the presence of prior CVD, arrhythmias and listing for transplantation were not. CONCLUSIONS: Wrist-worn accelerometers are an acceptable and reliable method to measure physical activity in people on dialysis and may also be used to estimate functional behaviours. Among people on dialysis, who are broadly half as active as general population controls, age and leg weakness appear to be more important determinants of low activity levels than CVD.

Declining comorbidity-adjusted mortality rates in English patients receiving maintenance renal replacement therapy.

We aimed to compare long-term mortality trends in end-stage renal disease versus general population controls after accounting for differences in age, sex and comorbidity. Cohorts of 45,000 patients starting maintenance renal replacement therapy (RRT) and 5.3 million hospital controls were identified from two large electronic hospital inpatient data sets: the Oxford Record Linkage Study (1965-1999) and all-England Hospital Episode Statistics (2000-2011). All-cause and cause-specific three-year mortality rates for both populations were calculated using Poisson regression and standardized to the age, sex, and comorbidity structure of an average 1970-2008 RRT population. The median age at initiation of RRT in 1970-1990 was 49 years, increasing to 61 years by 2006-2008. Over that period, there were increases in the prevalence of vascular disease (from 10.0 to 25.2%) and diabetes (from 6.7 to 33.9%). After accounting for age, sex and comorbidity differences, standardized three-year all-cause mortality rates in treated patients with end-stage renal disease between 1970 and 2011 fell by about one-half (relative decline 51%, 95% confidence interval 41-60%) steeper than the one-third decline (34%, 31-36%) observed in the general population. Declines in three-year mortality rates were evident among those who received a kidney transplant and those who remained on dialysis, and among those with and without diabetes. These data suggest that the full extent of mortality rate declines among RRT patients since 1970 is only apparent when changes in comorbidity over time are taken into account, and that mortality rates in RRT patients appear to have declined faster than in the general population.

Biliary Tract and Liver Complications in Polycystic Kidney Disease.

Polycystic liver disease is a well described manifestation of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). Biliary tract complications are less well recognized. We report a 50-year single-center experience of 1007 patients, which raised a hypothesis that ADPKD is associated with biliary tract disease. We tested this hypothesis using all England Hospital Episode Statistics data (1998-2012), within which we identified 23,454 people with ADPKD and 6,412,754 hospital controls. Hospitalization rates for biliary tract disease, serious liver complications, and a range of other known ADPKD manifestations were adjusted for potential confounders. Compared with non-ADPKD hospital controls, those with ADPKD had higher rates of admission for biliary tract disease (rate ratio [RR], 2.24; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.16 to 2.33) and serious liver complications (RR, 4.67; 95% CI, 4.35 to 5.02). In analyses restricted to those on maintenance dialysis or with a kidney transplant, RRs attenuated substantially, but ADPKD remained associated with biliary tract disease (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.31) and perhaps with serious liver complications (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.33). The ADPKD versus non-ADPKD RRs for biliary tract disease were larger for men than women (heterogeneity P<0.001), but RRs for serious liver complications appeared higher in women (heterogeneity P<0.001). Absolute excess risk of biliary tract disease associated with ADPKD was larger than that for serious liver disease, cerebral aneurysms, and inguinal hernias but less than that for urinary tract infections. Overall, biliary tract disease seems to be a distinct and important extrarenal complication of ADPKD.