Access to routinely collected health data for clinical trials – review of successful data requests to UK registries

Eligibility

RCHD was defined as data which are collected for “administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals” (6). This included large, national, administrative resources (e.g. NHS Digital), national disease and healthcare audits and registries in each UK devolved nation (e.g. the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit). Hereafter we refer to these collectively as registries. Cohort studies, biobanks, NHS Safe Havens and electronic health records held only at the point of care, such as primary care records held within general practitioner (GP) practices, were excluded.

Eligible RCTs received RCHD from a registry between 2013 and 2018. This time-frame was selected to broadly align with the initiation of release registers in large national databases following the 2014 Partridge Review (7). For each included RCT, any additional access to RCHD from another registry and any previous access of RCHD prior to 2013 was also captured.

Eligible RCTs were those which accessed RCHD to inform either baseline or outcome measure data of trial participants. For at least one outcome measure, RCHD must have been used for any combination of: (i) replacing conventionally collected trial data; (ii) cross-checking against existing trial data (including participant-reported data); (iii) cross-checking RCHD from different sources; (iv) triggering the trial team to further investigate a possible outcome measure or event; (v) cost-effectiveness analysis and (vi) solely methodological purposes. This was captured separately for (a) the primary reporting period of the trial (i.e. baseline data or an outcome measure within the follow-up for capturing the primary trial outcome measure) and (b) for long-term follow-up.

We excluded RCTs if the RCHD was only accessed to plan or facilitate recruitment, e.g. to contact patients with an invitation of RCT enrolment, or to extrapolate results of RCTs to broader populations. The Protocol for this review was registered with PROSPERO at the stage of screening and data collection (CRD42019123088, registered 20 Feb 2019).

RCT identification

First, we compiled a list of registries (healthcare databases, registries and audits) in the UK through internet searching, the Health Quality Improvement Program (HQIP) directory (8), contact with government and contracted organisations, and existing knowledge of UK registries (more information on registries approached in additional file [additional file 1]). Release registers were identified where possible; these are lists of all data released from a given registry, often including the purpose for which the data will be used and the specific datasets accessed. Where these were not available, registries were contacted to request a list of RCTs to which they had released RCHD.

Release registers from each source were de-duplicated prior to screening (to remove multiple instances of data releases for the same RCT from an individual registry). The resultant list was then searched for eligible RCTs by filtering for entries containing one or more of the following terms: rand*, trial, RCT, study, placebo, phase. The search results were then screened independently for potentially eligible RCTs by two authors. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and re-checking.

Data collection and analysis

For each RCT identified, we sought information from within the release registers (e.g. ‘purpose statements’), RCT websites (including privacy statements, publications, protocols, statistical analysis plans, patient information sheets and consent forms), and other available sources including trial registration information. Publications for each RCT were searched for in major dissemination databases (e.g. MEDLINE, Google Scholar). More information about data collection is given in an additional file [additional file 4].

Data collection included information about the RCT (e.g. disease category, recruitment and publication status, primary outcome measure), the registry (e.g. NHS Digital), the RCHD accessed (e.g. Hospital Episode Statistics), and the way in which the data were used (e.g. linkage identifiers used, category of data use). Due to the large number of RCTs identified, we focussed more detailed data collection of information on the datasets accessed and the way in which the data were used to RCTs accessing RCHD between 2017 and 2018. Two authors independently extracted data onto a piloted data extraction form and any disagreements were resolved by discussion and re-checking. Data were subsequently entered into a clinical data management system (Elsevier’s MACRO (9)) and descriptive analyses were undertaken in Stata (version 15.1)(10). Trial teams were not contacted for information or clarification.

To enable a broad comparison of this cohort of RCTs with those conducted in the UK, we compared the descriptive characteristics of these RCTs with those reported in a recent cross-sectional analysis of UK Health Research Authority (HRA) approved RCTs (11).

Patient and public involvement

No patients were involved in any component of the design, production, analysis, interpretation or writing up of the results of this review. We plan to disseminate the final results to the HDR UK Public Advisory Board, and request they disseminate the manuscript within their network as appropriate.

Results of the search

The search and extraction of data was undertaken between Jan-2019 and May-2019. 74 UK registries holding RCHD were identified, of which 13 maintained accessible release registers (Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Identification of trials from registries

Each trial is only counted once. For instance, trials identified through both release register searches and notification by registries are only captured once. Of 13 registries with release registers available, 10 published comprehensive release registers and 3 provided a brief lists of projects receiving RCHD on the website.

These release registers listed more than 6,000 unique data releases. There were 2,918 releases identified in the search. These were manually screened and 141 RCTs were identified; corresponding to 2% (141/6251) of the total releases. The remaining 61 registries were contacted to request information about RCTs having accessed RCHD, resulting in a further 19 RCTs identified from eight registries. During the data extraction, we discovered one trial that had received data from one of the registries which had not otherwise provided a list of trials. This gave a total of 160 RCTs accessing RCHD from 22 registries between 2013 and 2018 (Figure 1). Although all RCTs had accessed RCHD between 2013 and 2018, they were conducted in varying time periods, with recruitment start dates ranging from 1979 to 2018. Detailed data collection, for trials accessing data in 2017-18, involved 91/160 trials.

RCT characteristics

The 160 included RCTs were generally large (median sample size 1590, range 41 – 6,000,000), although 11% (17/160) described themselves as pilot or feasibility trials (Table 1). The majority (85%, 136/160) were individually randomised trials and 15% (24/160) were cluster randomised. The most common disease categories were cancer (29%, 47/160) and cardiovascular disease (29%, 46/160), and the most common primary outcome measure was survival/death (45%, 72/160). Only 20% (32/160) of the RCTs were international, recruiting at additional sites outside of the UK. A small number of RCTs had publications available which included outcome measures informed by access to RCHD. Of these, 83% (29/35) had one or more results publication in a high profile medical journal.

The majority of RCTs were clearly coordinated through a UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Registered Clinical Trials Unit (64%, 103/160 coordinated by a registered CTU, 14%, 22/160 were not, 22%, 35/160 were unclear) (Table 1). Of all 51 currently registered CTUs, 63% (32/51) had accessed RCHD for at least one RCT in this cohort. Of these CTUs, the median number of RCTs from this cohort was 2 (range 1-11).

RCTs accessing RCHD were more often conducted in cancer and cardiovascular populations compared to RCTs submitted for an ethical opinion via the HRA in 2015 (29% vs 10%, and 29% vs 17%, respectively), were more likely to recruit from primary care settings (26% vs 5%), to be based only in the UK (78% vs 50%) and to be cluster-randomised (15% vs 3%). RCHD RCTs had larger sample sizes on average (median 1590 vs 275) than those submitted to the HRA (Table 2). RCTs accessing RCHD were less likely to be feasibility/pilot studies (11% vs 18%). We identified 160 trials accessing RCHD over a five-year period (32 trials per year), which is equivalent to approximately 3% (32/963) of all RCTs approved by the HRA in 2015.

RCHD access and use

NHS Digital was by far the most commonly accessed registry: 68% (108/160) trials accessed RCHD from NHS Digital (Table 3).

The second most common was Information Services Division in Scotland 22%, 35/160). Most of the RCTs accessed RCHD from one registry (79%, 126/160); 14% (22/160) accessed data from two registries, 5% (8/160) from 3 registries, and 3% (4/160) from 4 or more. A small number of RCTs were completely embedded (i.e. participants were recruited from and followed-up) in the registry (12%, 11/91).

Of the 160 RCTs, 91 had received a total of 134 data releases in the years 2017-2018 and were selected for detailed data extraction. Identifiers used for linkage were often unclear (46%, 62/134), however when assessable, the most common fields were NHS Number (94%, 68/72), date of birth (85%, 61/72) and participant name (56%, 40/72) (an additional file shows Table S2 [additional file 2]). The most common datasets accessed were mortality (76%, 69/91), hospital visits (55%, 50/91) and cancer registration (32%, 29/91) (Table 3). Almost half of the included RCTs (47%, 43/91) accessed RCHD to inform the primary trial outcome measure. Of RCTs using RCHD only for at least one outcome measure, 38% (20/52) were drug trials.

36 out of 91 RCTs (40%, 36/91) accessed RCHD for both the primary and long-term follow-up (Table 4); 21% (19/91) of RCTs accessed one or more RCHD only for long-term follow-up and 45% (41/91) accessed one or more RCHD exclusively for the primary with no obvious planned long-term follow-up.

Most commonly, RCHD alone was used for at least one trial outcome measure (57%, 52/91) (Table 4). One third of RCTs used RCHD for cross-checking, either of trial data (30%, 27/91) or participant-reported data (31%, 28/91). Use of RCHD to trigger case review was also common (24%, 22/91), as was use of the data to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis (27%, 25/91). Use of RCHD for methodological reasons was uncommon (12%, 11/91), as was release for comparison of two or more RCHD sources (10%, 9/91). RCTs using RCHD for long-term follow-up were more likely to use RCHD alone to inform outcome measures, and less likely to conduct cross-checking against trial or participant-reported data, or to use the data for methodological purposes. Overall, there was substantial variation in how trials used RCHD to inform participant outcome measures. For example, among the 74 trials using RCHD within the primary reporting period, 37 different combinations of data use were captured (an additional file shows Table S3 [additional file 3]). Among the 36 RCTs using RCHD for the primary report and long-term follow-up, 56% (20/36) used the data differently for these two stages of the study for at least one outcome measure, for example shifting from cross-checking of trial data for the primary reporting to RCHD only during the long-term follow-up.