Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems data (HCSD) could improve the efficiency of clinical trials, but their accuracy and validity are uncertain. Our objective was to assess the accuracy of HCSD as the sole method of outcome detection in the REstart or STop Antithrombotics Randomised Trial (RESTART; ISRCTN71907627) compared with adjudicated questionnaire follow-up and compare estimates of treatment effect. METHODS: RESTART was a prospective, open, assessor-blind, parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) of antiplatelet therapy after intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) in the UK. We included 496 (92%) of 537 RESTART participants, who were resident in England or Scotland at randomisation. Computerised randomisation incorporating minimisation allocated participants (1:1) to start or avoid antiplatelet therapy. RESTART used annual questionnaires to detect its primary outcome (recurrent ICH) and secondary outcome (a composite of haemorrhagic or ischemic major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) over a median of 2.0 years; an independent adjudication committee verified outcomes using medical records and brain imaging. We obtained ICD10-coded HCSD on hospital admissions and deaths in England and Scotland to identify primary and secondary outcomes. We compared HCSD with a reference standard of adjudicated outcomes. We estimated the effects of antiplatelet therapy using HCSD alone in a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for minimisation variables. RESULTS: In the original RESTART trial, 31 people experienced a primary outcome event. HCSD had sensitivity of 84% (95% CI 66 to 95%) and positive predictive value of 68% (51 to 82%) for recurrent ICH. HCSD estimated an effect of antiplatelet therapy (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.98; p = 0.044) that was almost identical to adjudicated outcomes (aHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.03; p = 0.060). HCSD had sensitivity of 84% (76 to 91%) and positive predictive value of 78% (69 to 85%) for MACE, on which HCSD estimated an effect of antiplatelet therapy (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.16; p = 0.247) that was similar to adjudicated outcomes (aHR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.95; p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: In a RCT of antiplatelet therapy for people with ICH, HCSD was reasonably accurate and provided similar estimates of treatment effect compared with adjudicated outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN71907627 . Registered on 25 April 2013.

Original publication

DOI

10.1186/s13063-024-08631-7

Type

Journal article

Journal

Trials

Publication Date

16/11/2024

Volume

25

Keywords

Healthcare systems data; Intracerebral haemorrhage; Trial outcome adjudication, Humans, Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors, Prospective Studies, Male, Female, Aged, Treatment Outcome, Cerebral Hemorrhage, Time Factors, Data Accuracy, Recurrence, Reproducibility of Results, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Risk Factors, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cardiovascular Diseases, Scotland, Hemorrhagic Stroke, Stroke, England, United Kingdom