Are routinely collected NHS administrative records suitable for endpoint identification in clinical trials? Evidence from the West of Scotland coronary prevention study

Barry, Sarah J. E. and Dinnett, Eleanor and Kean, Sharon and Gaw, Allen and Ford, Ian (2013) Are routinely collected NHS administrative records suitable for endpoint identification in clinical trials? Evidence from the West of Scotland coronary prevention study. PLoS ONE, 8 (9). ISSN 1932-6203

[img]
Preview
Text (Barry-etal-PLoS-2013-Are-routinely-collected-NHS-administrative-records-suitable-for-endpoint-identification-in-clinical-trials)
Barry_etal_PLoS_2013_Are_routinely_collected_NHS_administrative_records_suitable_for_endpoint_identification_in_clinical_trials.pdf
Final Published Version
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 logo

Download (150kB)| Preview

    Abstract

    Background: Routinely collected electronic patient records are already widely used in epidemiological research. In this work we investigated the potential for using them to identify endpoints in clinical trials. Methods: The events recorded in the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS), a large clinical trial of pravastatin in middle-aged hypercholesterolaemic men in the 1990s, were compared with those in the record-linked deaths and hospitalisations records routinely collected in Scotland. Results: We matched 99% of fatal study events by date. We showed excellent matching (97 of the causes of fatal endpoint events and good matching (.80% for first events) of the causes of nonfatal endpoint events with a slightly lower rate of mismatching of record linkage than study events (19% of first study myocardial infarctions (MI) and 4% of first record linkage MIs not matched as MI). We also investigated the matching of non-endpoint events and showed a good level of matching, with .78% of first stroke/TIA events being matched as stroke/TIA. The primary reasons for mismatches were record linkage data recording readmissions for procedures or previous events, differences between the diagnoses in the routinely collected data and the conclusions of the clinical trial expert adjudication committee, events occurring outside Scotland and therefore being missed by record linkage data, miscoding of cardiac events in hospitalisations data as 'unspecified chest pain', some general miscoding in the record linkage data and some record linkage errors. Conclusions: We conclude that routinely collected data could be used for recording cardiovascular endpoints in clinical trials and would give very similar results to rigorously collected clinical trial data, in countries with unified health systems such as Scotland. The endpoint types would need to be carefully thought through and an expert endpoint adjudication committee should be involved.