Improving eSource Site Start-Up Practices.

BACKGROUND: eSource software that copies patient electronic health record data into a clinical trial electronic case report form holds promise for increasing data quality while reducing data collection, monitoring and source document verification costs. Integrating eSource into multicenter clinical trial start-up procedures could facilitate the use of eSource technologies in clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative integrative analysis to identify eSource site start-up key steps, challenges that might occur in executing those steps, and potential solutions to those challenges. We then conducted a value analysis to determine the challenges and solutions with the greatest impacts for eSource implementation teams. RESULTS: There were 16 workshop participants: 10 pharmaceutical sponsor, 3 academic site, and 1 eSource vendor representatives. Participants identified 36 Site Start-Up Key Steps, 11 Site Start-Up Challenges, and 14 Site Start-Up Solutions for eSource-enabled studies. Participants also identified 77 potential impacts of the Challenges upon the Site Start-Up Key Steps and 70 ways in which the Solutions might impact Site Start-Up Challenges. The most important Challenges were: (1) not being able to identify a site eSource champion and (2) not agreeing on an eSource approach. The most important Solutions were: (1) vendors accepting electronic data in the FHIR standard, (2) creating standard content for eSource-related legal documents, and (3) creating a common eSource site readiness checklist. CONCLUSIONS: Site start-up for eSource-enabled multi-center clinical trials is a complex socio-technical problem. This study's Start-Up Solutions provide a basic infrastructure for scalable eSource implementation.

On-treatment analysis of torsemide versus furosemide for patients hospitalized for heart failure: A post-hoc analysis of TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: The TRANSFORM-HF trial demonstrated no significant outcome differences between torsemide and furosemide following hospitalization for heart failure (HF), but may have been impacted by non-adherence to the randomized diuretic. The current study sought to determine the treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide using an on-treatment analysis inclusive of all randomized patients except those confirmed non-adherent to study diuretic. METHODS AND RESULTS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF from June 2018 through March 2022. Patients were randomized to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide versus furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This post-hoc on-treatment analysis included all patients alive with either known or unknown diuretic status, and excluded patients confirmed to be non-adherent to study diuretic. This modified on-treatment definition was applied separately at time of hospital discharge and 30-day follow-up. All-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes were assessed over 12 months. Overall, 2570 (89.9%) and 2374 (83.0%) patients were included in on-treatment analyses at discharge and 30-day follow-up, respectively. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between torsemide and furosemide in patients on-treatment at discharge (17.5% vs. 17.8%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.22], p = 0.96) and at 30-day follow-up (14.5% vs. 15.0%; HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.81-1.27], p = 0.90). All-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization was similar between torsemide and furosemide in patients who were on-treatment at discharge (58.3% vs. 61.3%; HR 0.92 [95% CI 0.82-1.03]) and 30-day follow-up (60.9% vs. 64.4%; HR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.05]). In patients who were on-treatment at 30-day follow-up, there were 677 total hospitalizations in the torsemide group and 686 total hospitalizations in the furosemide group (rate ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.86-1.14], p = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: In TRANSFORM-HF, a post-hoc on-treatment analysis did not meaningfully differ from the original trial results. Among those deemed compliant with the assigned diuretic, there remained no significant difference in mortality or hospitalization after HF hospitalization with a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

Impact of baseline kidney dysfunction on oral diuretic efficacy following hospitalization for heart failure - insights from TRANSFORM-HF.

AIM: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure (HF), a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide showed no difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization. Clinicians have traditionally favoured torsemide in the setting of kidney dysfunction due to better oral bioavailability and longer half-life, but direct supportive evidence is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: The TRANSFORM-HF trial randomized patients hospitalized for HF to a long-term strategy of torsemide versus furosemide, and enrolled patients across the spectrum of renal function (without dialysis). In this post-hoc analysis, baseline renal function during the index hospitalization was assessed as categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; <30, 30-<60, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2). The interaction between baseline renal function and treatment effect of torsemide versus furosemide was assessed with respect to mortality and hospitalization outcomes, and the change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS). Of 2859 patients randomized, 336 (11.8%) had eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, 1138 (39.8%) had eGFR 30-<60 ml/min/1.73 m2, and 1385 (48.4%) had eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Baseline eGFR did not modify treatment effects of torsemide versus furosemide on all adverse clinical outcomes including individual components or composites of all-cause mortality and all-cause (re)-hospitalizations, both when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously (p-value for interaction all >0.108). Similarly, no treatment effect modification by eGFR was found for the change in KCCQ-CSS (p-value for interaction all >0.052) when assessing eGFR categorically or continuously. CONCLUSION: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, there was no significant difference in clinical and patient-reported outcomes between torsemide and furosemide, irrespective of renal function.

Health Care Cost Reductions with Machine Learning-Directed Evaluations during Radiation Therapy - An Economic Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning (ML) may cost-effectively direct health care by identifying patients most likely to benefit from preventative interventions to avoid negative and expensive outcomes. System for High-Intensity Evaluation During Radiation Therapy (SHIELD-RT; NCT04277650) was a single-institution, randomized controlled study in which electronic health record-based ML accurately identified patients at high risk for acute care (emergency visit or hospitalization) during radiotherapy (RT) and targeted them for supplemental clinical evaluations. This ML-directed intervention resulted in decreased acute care utilization. Given the limited prospective data showing the ability of ML to direct interventions cost-efficiently, an economic analysis was performed. METHODS: A post hoc economic analysis was conducted of SHIELD-RT that included RT courses from January 7, 2019, to June 30, 2019. ML-identified high-risk courses (≥10% risk of acute care during RT) were randomized to receive standard of care weekly clinical evaluations with ad hoc supplemental evaluations per clinician discretion versus mandatory twice-weekly evaluations. The primary outcome was difference in mean total medical costs during and 15 days after RT. Acute care costs were obtained via institutional cost accounting. Physician and intervention costs were estimated via Medicare and Medicaid data. Negative binomial regression was used to estimate cost outcomes after adjustment for patient and disease factors. RESULTS: A total of 311 high-risk RT courses among 305 patients were randomized to the standard (n=157) or the intervention (n=154) group. Unadjusted mean intervention group supplemental visit costs were $155 per course (95% confidence interval, $142 to $168). The intervention group had fewer acute care visits per course (standard, 0.47; intervention, 0.31; P=0.04). Total mean adjusted costs were $3110 per course for the standard group and $1494 for the intervention group (difference in means, $1616 [95% confidence interval, $1450 to $1783]; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this economic analysis of a randomized controlled, health care ML study, mandatory supplemental evaluations for ML-identified high-risk patients were associated with both reduced total medical costs and improved clinical outcomes. Further study is needed to determine whether economic results are generalizable. (Funded in part by The Duke Endowment, The Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Duke Department of Radiation Oncology, and the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health [R01CA277782]; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04277650.).

Torsemide Versus Furosemide After Discharge in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Ejection Fraction: Findings From TRANSFORM-HF.

BACKGROUND: The TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or hospitalization among patients randomized to a strategy of torsemide versus furosemide following a heart failure (HF) hospitalization. However, outcomes and responses to some therapies differ by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Thus, we sought to explore the effect of torsemide versus furosemide by baseline LVEF and to assess outcomes across LVEF groups. METHODS: We compared baseline patient characteristics and randomized treatment effects for various end points in TRANSFORM-HF stratified by LVEF: HF with reduced LVEF, ≤40% versus HF with mildly reduced LVEF, 41% to 49% versus HF with preserved LVEF, ≥50%. We also evaluated associations between LVEF and clinical outcomes. Study end points were all-cause mortality or hospitalization at 30 days and 12 months, total hospitalizations at 12 months, and change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score. RESULTS: Overall, 2635 patients (median 64 years, 36% female, 34% Black) had LVEF data. Compared with HF with reduced LVEF, patients with HF with mildly reduced LVEF and HF with preserved LVEF had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. After adjusting for covariates, there was no significant difference in risk of clinical outcomes across the LVEF groups (adjusted hazard ratio for 12-month all-cause mortality, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.39] for HF with mildly reduced LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.70-1.17] for HF with preserved LVEF versus HF with reduced LVEF; P=0.73). In addition, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide (1) for mortality and hospitalization outcomes, irrespective of LVEF group and (2) in changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score in any LVEF subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Despite baseline demographic and clinical differences between LVEF cohorts in TRANSFORM-HF, there were no significant differences in the clinical end points with torsemide versus furosemide across the LVEF spectrum. There was a substantial risk for all-cause mortality and subsequent hospitalization independent of baseline LVEF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Evaluating registry-based trial economics: Results from the STRESS clinical trial.

Background: Registry-based trials have the potential to reduce randomized clinical trial (RCT) costs. However, observed cost differences also may be achieved through pragmatic trial designs. A systematic comparison of trial costs across different designs has not been previously performed. Methods: We conducted a study to compare the current Steroids to Reduce Systemic inflammation after infant heart surgery (STRESS) registry-based RCT vs. two established designs: pragmatic RCT and explanatory RCT. The primary outcome was total RCT design costs. Secondary outcomes included: RCT duration and personnel hours. Costs were estimated using the Duke Clinical Research Institute's pricing model. Results: The Registry-Based RCT estimated duration was 31.9 weeks greater than the other designs (259.5 vs. 227.6 weeks). This delay was caused by the Registry-Based design's periodic data harvesting that delayed site closing and statistical reporting. Total personnel hours were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design (52,488 vs 29,763 vs. 24,480 h, respectively). Total costs were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design ($10,140,263 vs. $4,164,863 vs. $3,268,504, respectively). Thus, Registry-Based total costs were 32 % of the Explanatory and 78 % of the Pragmatic design. Conclusion: Total costs for the STRESS RCT with a registry-based design were less than those for a pragmatic design and much less than an explanatory design. Cost savings reflect design elements and leveraging of registry resources to improve cost efficiency, but delays to trial completion should be considered.

Torsemide vs Furosemide Among Patients With New-Onset vs Worsening Chronic Heart Failure: A Substudy of the TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Differences in clinical profiles, outcomes, and diuretic treatment effects may exist between patients with de novo heart failure (HF) and worsening chronic HF (WHF). Objectives: To compare clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of torsemide vs furosemide in patients hospitalized with de novo HF vs WHF. Design, Setting, and Participants: All patients with a documented ejection fraction who were randomized in the Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) trial, conducted from June 18 through March 2022, were included in this post hoc analysis. Study data were analyzed March to May 2023. Exposure: Patients were categorized by HF type and further divided by loop diuretic strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points included all-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes over 12 months, as well as change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS). Results: Among 2858 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [14.0] years; 1803 male [63.1%]), 838 patients (29.3%) had de novo HF, and 2020 patients (70.7%) had WHF. Patients with de novo HF were younger (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [14.5] years vs 66.1 [13.5] years), had a higher glomerular filtration rate (mean [SD], 68.6 [24.9] vs 57.0 [24.0]), lower levels of natriuretic peptides (median [IQR], brain-type natriuretic peptide, 855.0 [423.0-1555.0] pg/mL vs 1022.0 [500.0-1927.0] pg/mL), and tended to be discharged on lower doses of loop diuretic (mean [SD], 50.3 [46.2] mg vs 63.8 [52.4] mg). De novo HF was associated with lower all-cause mortality at 12 months (de novo, 65 of 838 [9.1%] vs WHF, 408 of 2020 [25.4%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.66; P < .001). Similarly, lower all-cause first rehospitalization at 12 months and greater improvement from baseline in KCCQ-CSS at 12 months were noted among patients with de novo HF (median [IQR]: de novo, 29.94 [27.35-32.54] vs WHF, 23.68 [21.62-25.74]; adjusted estimated difference in means: 6.26; 95% CI, 3.72-8.81; P < .001). There was no significant difference in mortality with torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo (No. of events [rate per 100 patient-years]: torsemide, 27 [7.4%] vs furosemide, 38 [10.9%]; aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40-1.14; P = .15) or WHF (torsemide 212 [26.8%] vs furosemide, 196 [24.0%]; aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32; P = .42; P for interaction = .10), In addition, no significant differences in hospitalizations, first all-cause hospitalization, or total hospitalizations at 12 months were noted with a strategy of torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo HF or WHF. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, de novo HF was associated with better clinical and patient-reported outcomes when compared with WHF. Regardless of HF type, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide with respect to 12-month clinical or patient-reported outcomes.

Collaborative Program to Evaluate Real World Data for Use in Clinical Studies and Regulatory Decision Making.

The 21st Century Cures Act allows the US Food and Drug Administration to consider real world data (RWD) for new indications or post approval study requirements. However, there is limited guidance as to the relative quality of different RWD types. The ACE-RWD program will compare the quality of EHR clinical data, EHR billing data, and linked healthcare claims data to traditional clinical trial data collection methods. ACE-RWD is being conducted alongside 5-10 ancillary studies, with five sponsors, across multiple therapeutic areas. Each ancillary study will be conducted after or in parallel with its parent clinical study at a minimum of two clinical sites. Although not required, it is anticipated that EHR clinical and EHR billing data will be obtained via EHR-to-eCRF mechanisms that are based on the Health Level Seven (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR®) standard.

Effect of Torsemide Versus Furosemide on Symptoms and Quality of Life Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. METHODS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months. RESULTS: Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P=0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P=0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P=0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P=0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Assessing clinical site readiness for electronic health record (EHR)-to-electronic data capture (EDC) automated data collection.

BACKGROUND: eSource software is used to automatically copy a patient's electronic health record data into a clinical study's electronic case report form. However, there is little evidence to assist sponsors in identifying the best sites for multi-center eSource studies. METHODS: We developed an eSource site readiness survey. The survey was administered to principal investigators, clinical research coordinators, and chief research information officers at Pediatric Trial Network sites. RESULTS: A total of 61 respondents were included in this study (clinical research coordinator, 22; principal investigator, 20; and chief research information officer, 19). Clinical research coordinators and principal investigators ranked medication administration, medication orders, laboratory, medical history, and vital signs data as having the highest priority for automation. While most organizations used some electronic health record research functions (clinical research coordinator, 77%; principal investigator, 75%; and chief research information officer, 89%), only 21% of sites were using Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources standards to exchange patient data with other institutions. Respondents generally gave lower readiness for change ratings to organizations that did not have a separate research information technology group and where researchers practiced in hospitals not operated by their medical schools. CONCLUSIONS: Site readiness to participate in eSource studies is not merely a technical problem. While technical capabilities are important, organizational priorities, structure, and the site's support of clinical research functions are equally important considerations.

Effect of Torsemide vs Furosemide After Discharge on All-Cause Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Although furosemide is the most commonly used loop diuretic in patients with heart failure, some studies suggest a potential benefit for torsemide. Objective: To determine whether torsemide results in decreased mortality compared with furosemide among patients hospitalized for heart failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial that recruited 2859 participants hospitalized with heart failure (regardless of ejection fraction) at 60 hospitals in the United States. Recruitment occurred from June 2018 through March 2022, with follow-up through 30 months for death and 12 months for hospitalizations. The final date for follow-up data collection was July 2022. Interventions: Loop diuretic strategy of torsemide (n = 1431) or furosemide (n = 1428) with investigator-selected dosage. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality in a time-to-event analysis. There were 5 secondary outcomes with all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization and total hospitalizations assessed over 12 months being highest in the hierarchy. The prespecified primary hypothesis was that torsemide would reduce all-cause mortality by 20% compared with furosemide. Results: TRANSFORM-HF randomized 2859 participants with a median age of 65 years (IQR, 56-75), 36.9% were women, and 33.9% were Black. Over a median follow-up of 17.4 months, a total of 113 patients (53 [3.7%] in the torsemide group and 60 [4.2%] in the furosemide group) withdrew consent from the trial prior to completion. Death occurred in 373 of 1431 patients (26.1%) in the torsemide group and 374 of 1428 patients (26.2%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.89-1.18]). Over 12 months following randomization, all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization occurred in 677 patients (47.3%) in the torsemide group and 704 patients (49.3%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83-1.02]). There were 940 total hospitalizations among 536 participants in the torsemide group and 987 total hospitalizations among 577 participants in the furosemide group (rate ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.84-1.07]). Results were similar across prespecified subgroups, including among patients with reduced, mildly reduced, or preserved ejection fraction. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure, torsemide compared with furosemide did not result in a significant difference in all-cause mortality over 12 months. However, interpretation of these findings is limited by loss to follow-up and participant crossover and nonadherence. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.

Economic analysis of a single institutional review board data exchange standard in multisite clinical studies.

BACKGROUND: Single Institutional Review Boards (sIRB) are not achieving the benefits envisioned by the National Institutes of Health. The recently published Health Level Seven (HL7®) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR®) data exchange standard seeks to improve sIRB operational efficiency. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a study to determine whether the use of this standard would be economically attractive for sIRB workflows collectively and for Reviewing and Relying institutions. We examined four sIRB-associated workflows at a single institution: (1) Initial Study Protocol Application, (2) Site Addition for an Approved sIRB study, (3) Continuing Review, and (4) Medical and Non-Medical Event Reporting. Task-level information identified personnel roles and their associated hour requirements for completion. Tasks that would be eliminated by the data exchange standard were identified. Personnel costs were estimated using annual salaries by role. No tasks would be eliminated in the Initial Study Protocol Application or Medical and Non-Medical Event Reporting workflows through use of the proposed data exchange standard. Site Addition workflow hours would be reduced by 2.50 h per site (from 15.50 to 13.00 h) and Continuing Review hours would be reduced by 9.00 h per site per study year (from 36.50 to 27.50 h). Associated costs savings were $251 for the Site Addition workflow (from $1609 to $1358) and $1033 for the Continuing Review workflow (from $4110 to $3076). CONCLUSION: Use of the proposed HL7 FHIR® data exchange standard would be economically attractive for sIRB workflows collectively and for each entity participating in the new workflows.

Ascertaining Death Events in a Pragmatic Clinical Trial: Insights From the TRANSFORM-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Death ascertainment can be challenging for pragmatic clinical trials that limit site follow-up activities to usual clinical care. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used blinded aggregate data from the ongoing ToRsemide comparison with furoSemide FOR Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) pragmatic clinical trial in patients with heart failure to evaluate the agreement between centralized call center death event identification and the United States National Death Index (NDI). Of 2284 total patients randomized through April 12, 2021, 1480 were randomized in 2018-2019 and 804 in 2020-2021. The call center identified 416 total death events (177 in 2018-2019 and 239 in 2020-2021). The NDI 2018-2019 final file identified 178 death events, 165 of which were also identified by the call center. The study's inter-rater reliability metric (Cohen's kappa coefficient, 0.920; 95% confidence interval, 0.889-0.951) demonstrates a high level of agreement. The time between a death event and its identification was less for the call center (median, 47 days; interquartile range, 11-103 days) than for the NDI (median, 270 days; interquartile range, 186-391 days). CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial agreement between deaths identified by a centralized call center and the NDI. However, the time between a death event and its identification is significantly less for the call center.

Chemokine receptor antagonists enhance morphine's antinociceptive effect but not respiratory depression.

AIMS: We have shown that chemokines injected into the periaqueductal gray region of the brain blocks opioid-induced analgesia in the rat cold-water tail flick test (CWTF). The present experiments tested whether chemokine receptor antagonists (CRAs), in combination with sub-analgesic doses of morphine, would provide maximal analgesia in the CWTF test and the mouse formalin pain assay. The effect of CRAs on respiratory depression was also evaluated. MAIN METHODS: One, two or four CRAs (AMD3100/CXCR4, maraviroc/CCR5, RS504393/CCR2 orAZD8797/CX3CR1) were used in combination with sub-analgesic doses of morphine, all given systemically. Pain was assessed using the rat CWTF test or formalin injection into the paw of mice scored by licking. Respiration and oxygen saturation were measured in rats using a MouseOX® Plus - pulse oximeter. KEY FINDINGS: In the CWTF test, a sub-maximal dose of morphine in combination with maraviroc alone, maraviroc plus AMD3100, or with the four chemokine receptor antagonists, produced synergistic increases in antinociception. In the formalin test, the combination of four CRAs plus a sub-maximal dose of morphine resulted in increased antinociception in both male and female mice. AMD3100 had an additive effect with morphine in both sexes. Coadministration of CRAs with morphine did not potentiate the opioid respiratory depressive effect. SIGNIFICANCE: These results support the conclusion that combinations of CRAs can increase the potency of sub-analgesic doses of morphine analgesia without increasing respiratory depression. The results support an "opioid sparing" strategy for alleviation of pain using reduced doses of opioids in combination with CRAs to achieve maximal analgesia.

Ascertaining Nonfatal Endpoints in Clinical Trials: Central Adjudication Versus Patient Insurance Claims.

BACKGROUND: The 21st Century Cures Act allows the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to utilize real-world data (RWD) to create real-world evidence (RWE) for new indications or post approval study requirements. We compared central adjudication with two insurance claims data sources to understand how endpoint accuracy differences impact RWE results. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model to compare differences in efficacy (all-cause death, stroke and myocardial infarction) and safety (bleeding requiring transfusion) results for a simulated acute coronary syndrome antiplatelet therapy clinical trial. Endpoint accuracy metrics were derived from previous studies that compared centrally-adjudicated and insurance claims-based clinical trial endpoints. RESULTS: Efficacy endpoint results per 100 patients were similar for the central adjudication model (intervention event rate, 11.3; control, 13.7; difference, 2.4) and the prospective claims data collection model (intervention event rate, 11.2; control 13.6; difference, 2.3). However, the retrospective claims linking model's efficacy results were larger (intervention event rate, 14.6; control, 18.0; difference, 3.4). True positive event rate results (intervention, control and difference) for both insurance claims-based models were less than the central adjudication model due to false negative events. Differences in false positive event rates were responsible for differences in efficacy results for the two insurance claims-based models. CONCLUSION: Efficacy endpoint results differed by data source. Investigators need guidance to determine which data sources produce regulatory-grade RWE.

Evaluating Site-Level Implementations of the HL7 FHIR Standard to Support eSource Data Exchange in Clinical Research.

Direct extraction and use of electronic health record (EHR) data is a long-term and multifaceted endeavor that includes design, development, implementation and evaluation of methods and tools for semi-automating tasks in the research data collection process, including, but not limited to, medical record abstraction (MRA). A systematic mapping of study data elements was used to measure the coverage of the Health Level Seven (HL7®) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR®) standard for a federally sponsored, pragmatic cardiovascular randomized controlled trial (RCT) targeting adults. We evaluated site-level implementations of the HL7® FHIR® standard to investigate study- and site-level differences that could affect coverage and offer insight into the feasibility of a FHIR-based eSource solution for multicenter clinical research.

Pragmatic Design of Randomized Clinical Trials for Heart Failure: Rationale and Design of the TRANSFORM-HF Trial.

Randomized clinical trials are the foundation of evidence-based medicine and central to practice guidelines and patient care decisions. Nonetheless, randomized trials in heart failure (HF) populations have become increasingly difficult to conduct and are frequently associated with slow patient enrollment, highly selected populations, extensive data collection, and high costs. The traditional model for HF trials has become particularly difficult to execute in the United States, where challenges to site-based research have frequently led to modest U.S. representation in global trials. In this context, the TRANSFORM-HF (Torsemide Comparison with Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) trial aims to overcome traditional trial challenges and compare the effects of torsemide versus furosemide among patients with HF in the United States. Loop diuretic agents are regularly used by most patients with HF and practice guidelines recommend optimal use of diuretic agents as key to a successful treatment strategy. Long-time clinical experience has contributed to dominant use of furosemide for loop diuretic therapy, although preclinical and small clinical studies suggest potential advantages of torsemide. However, due to the lack of appropriately powered clinical outcome studies, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that torsemide should be routinely recommended over furosemide. Given this gap in knowledge and the fundamental role of loop diuretic agents in HF care, the TRANSFORM-HF trial was designed as a prospective, randomized, event-driven, pragmatic, comparative-effectiveness study to definitively compare the effect of a treatment strategy of torsemide versus furosemide on long-term mortality, hospitalization, and patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. (TRANSFORM-HF: ToRsemide compArisoN With furoSemide FORManagement of Heart Failure [TRANSFORM-HF]; NCT03296813).

eSource-Enabled vs. Traditional Clinical Trial Data Collection Methods: A Site-Level Economic Analysis.

Directly extracting data from site electronic health records for updating clinical trial databases (eSource) can reduce site data collection times and errors. We conducted a study to determine clinical trial characteristics that make eSource vs. traditional data collection methods more and less economically attractive. The number of patients a site enrolls, the number of study data elements, study coordinator data collection times, and the percent of study data elements that can be extracted via eSource software all impact eSource economic attractiveness. However, these factors may not impact all clinical trial designs in the same way.

Index and follow-up costs of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study (ENGAGE PAS).

OBJECTIVE: Trials for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) report lower perioperative mortality and morbidity, but also higher costs compared with open repair. However, few studies have examined the subsequent cost of follow-up evaluations and interventions. Therefore, we present the index and 5-year follow-up costs of EVAR from the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study. METHODS: From August 2011 to June 2012, 178 patients were enrolled in the Endurant Stent Graft System Post Approval Study de novo cohort and treated with the Medtronic Endurant stent graft system (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif), of whom 171 (96%) consented for inclusion in the economic analysis and 177 participated in the quality-of-life (QOL) assessment over a 5-year follow-up period. Cost data for the index and follow-up hospitalizations were tabulated directly from hospital bills and categorized by Uniform Billing codes. Surgeon costs were calculated by Current Procedural Terminology codes for each intervention. Current Procedural Terminology codes were also used to calculate imaging and clinic follow-up reimbursement as surrogate to cost based on year-specific Medicare payment rates. Additionally, we compared aneurysm-related versus nonaneurysm-related subsequent hospitalization costs and report EuroQol 5D QOL dimensions. RESULTS: The mean hospital cost per person for the index EVAR was $45,304 (interquartile range [IQR], $25,932-$44,784). The largest contributor to the overall cost was operating room supplies, which accounted for 50% of the total cost at a mean of $22,849 per person. One hundred patients had 233 additional post index admission inpatient admissions; however, only 32 readmissions (14%) were aneurysm related, with a median cost of $13,119 (IQR, $4570-$24,153) compared with a nonaneurysm-related median cost of $6609 (IQR, $1244-$26,466). Additionally, 32 patients were admitted a total of 37 times for additional procedures after index admission, of which 14 (38%) were aneurysm-related. The median cost of hospitalization for aneurysm-related subsequent intervention was $22,023 (IQR, $13,177-$47,752), compared with a median nonaneurysm-related subsequent intervention cost of $19,007 (IQR, $8708-$33,301). After the initial 30-day visit, outpatient follow-up imaging reimbursement averaged $550 per person per year ($475 for computed tomography scans, $75 for the abdomen), whereas annual office visits averaged $107 per person per year, for a total follow-up reimbursement of $657 per person per year. There were no significant differences in the five EuroQol 5D QOL dimensions at each follow-up compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Costs associated with index EVAR are driven primarily by cost of operating room supplies, including graft components. Subsequent admissions are largely not aneurysm related; however, cost of aneurysm-related hospitalizations is higher than for nonaneurysm admissions. These data will serve as a baseline for comparison with open repair and other devices.