Accessing routinely collected health data to improve clinical trials: recent experience of access.
Clinical trials
Data accessibility
Electronic health records
Routinely collected data
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 May 2021
10 May 2021
Historique:
received:
06
10
2020
accepted:
24
04
2021
entrez:
11
5
2021
pubmed:
12
5
2021
medline:
22
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Routinely collected electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to enhance randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by facilitating recruitment and follow-up. Despite this, current EHR use is minimal in UK RCTs, in part due to ongoing concerns about the utility (reliability, completeness, accuracy) and accessibility of the data. The aim of this manuscript is to document the process, timelines and challenges of the application process to help improve the service both for the applicants and data holders. This is a qualitative paper providing a descriptive narrative from one UK clinical trials unit (MRC CTU at UCL) on the experience of two trial teams' application process to access data from three large English national datasets: National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) and NHS Digital to establish themes for discussion. The underpinning reason for applying for the data was to compare EHRs with data collected through case report forms in two RCTs, Add-Aspirin (ISRCTN 74358648) and PATCH (ISRCTN 70406718). The Add-Aspirin trial, which had a pre-planned embedded sub-study to assess EHR, received data from NCRAS 13 months after the first application. In the PATCH trial, the decision to request data was made whilst the trial was recruiting. The study received data after 8 months from NICOR and 15 months for NHS Digital following final application submission. This concluded in May 2020. Prior to application submission, significant time and effort was needed particularly in relation to the PATCH trial where negotiations over consent and data linkage took many years. Our experience demonstrates that data access can be a prolonged and complex process. This is compounded if multiple data sources are required for the same project. This needs to be factored in when planning to use EHR within RCTs and is best considered prior to conception of the trial. Data holders and researchers are endeavouring to simplify and streamline the application process so that the potential of EHR can be realised for clinical trials.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Routinely collected electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to enhance randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by facilitating recruitment and follow-up. Despite this, current EHR use is minimal in UK RCTs, in part due to ongoing concerns about the utility (reliability, completeness, accuracy) and accessibility of the data. The aim of this manuscript is to document the process, timelines and challenges of the application process to help improve the service both for the applicants and data holders.
METHODS
METHODS
This is a qualitative paper providing a descriptive narrative from one UK clinical trials unit (MRC CTU at UCL) on the experience of two trial teams' application process to access data from three large English national datasets: National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) and NHS Digital to establish themes for discussion. The underpinning reason for applying for the data was to compare EHRs with data collected through case report forms in two RCTs, Add-Aspirin (ISRCTN 74358648) and PATCH (ISRCTN 70406718).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The Add-Aspirin trial, which had a pre-planned embedded sub-study to assess EHR, received data from NCRAS 13 months after the first application. In the PATCH trial, the decision to request data was made whilst the trial was recruiting. The study received data after 8 months from NICOR and 15 months for NHS Digital following final application submission. This concluded in May 2020. Prior to application submission, significant time and effort was needed particularly in relation to the PATCH trial where negotiations over consent and data linkage took many years.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our experience demonstrates that data access can be a prolonged and complex process. This is compounded if multiple data sources are required for the same project. This needs to be factored in when planning to use EHR within RCTs and is best considered prior to conception of the trial. Data holders and researchers are endeavouring to simplify and streamline the application process so that the potential of EHR can be realised for clinical trials.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33971933
doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05295-5
pii: 10.1186/s13063-021-05295-5
pmc: PMC8108438
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
340Subventions
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C471 /A15015
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00004/02
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_12023/28
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00004/08
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_12023/24
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : C471/A12443
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Trials. 2018 Jan 11;19(1):29
pubmed: 29325575
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2017 Dec;29(12):789-795
pubmed: 29107392
CMAJ. 2019 Feb 4;191(5):E128-E133
pubmed: 30718337
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Jul 18;94 Suppl 1:101-6
pubmed: 22810458
Learn Health Syst. 2019 Mar 25;3(3):e10191
pubmed: 31317072
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Apr;14(4):306-16
pubmed: 23465742
N Engl J Med. 2013 Oct 24;369(17):1579-81
pubmed: 23991657
Arch Dis Child. 2013 May;98(5):391-2
pubmed: 23448863
Contemp Clin Trials. 2016 Nov;51:56-64
pubmed: 27777129
Lancet. 2019 Jun 1;393(10187):2213-2221
pubmed: 31030986
Mayo Clin Proc. 2020 Oct;95(10):2110-2124
pubmed: 33012342
Trials. 2020 May 12;21(1):398
pubmed: 32398093
F1000Res. 2020 May 4;9:323
pubmed: 33163157
N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 18;371(12):1111-20
pubmed: 25176395