4.5 Article

Validating the use of registries and claims data to support randomized trials: Rationale and design of the Extending Trial-Based Evaluations of Medical Therapies Using Novel Sources of Data (EXTEND) Study

Journal

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 212, Issue -, Pages 64-71

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2019.02.007

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [1R01HL136708-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for comparing the safety and efficacy of therapies but may be limited due to high costs, lack of feasibility, and difficulty enrolling real-world patient populations. The Extending Trial-Based Evaluations of Medical Therapies Using Novel Sources of Data (EXTEND) Study seeks to evaluate whether data collected within procedural registries and claims databases can reproduce trial results by substituting surrogate non-trial-based variables for exposures and outcomes. Methods and results Patient-level data from 2 clinical trial programs-the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Study and the United States CoreValve Studies-will be linked to a combination of national registry, administrative claims, and health system data. The concordance between baseline and outcomes data collected within nontrial data sets and trial information, including adjudicated end point events, will be assessed. We will compare the study results obtained using these alternative data sources to those derived using trial-ascertained variables and end points using trial-adjudicated end points and covariates. Conclusions Linkage of trials to registries and claims data represents an opportunity to use alternative data sources in place of and as adjuncts to randomized clinical trial data but requires further validation. The results of this research will help determine how these data sources can be used to improve our present and future understanding of new medical treatments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available