Electronic health records to facilitate clinical research

Electronic health records (EHRs) provide opportunities to enhance patient care, embed performance measures in clinical practice, and facilitate clinical research. Concerns have been raised about the increasing recruitment challenges in trials, burdensome and obtrusive data collection, and uncertain generalizability of the results. Leveraging electronic health records to counterbalance these trends is an area of intense interest. The initial applications of electronic health records, as the primary data source is envisioned for observational studies, embedded pragmatic or post-marketing registry-based randomized studies, or comparative effectiveness studies. Advancing this approach to randomized clinical trials, electronic health records may potentially be used to assess study feasibility, to facilitate patient recruitment, and streamline data collection at baseline and follow-up. Ensuring data security and privacy, overcoming the challenges associated with linking diverse systems and maintaining infrastructure for repeat use of high quality data, are some of the challenges associated with using electronic health records in clinical research. Collaboration between academia, industry, regulatory bodies, policy makers, patients, and electronic health record vendors is critical for the greater use of electronic health records in clinical research. This manuscript identifies the key steps required to advance the role of electronic health records in cardiovascular clinical research

Electronic health records to facilitate clinical research

Electronic health records (EHRs) provide opportunities to enhance patient care, embed performance measures in clinical practice, and facilitate clinical research. Concerns have been raised about the increasing recruitment challenges in trials, burdensome and obtrusive data collection, and uncertain generalizability of the results. Leveraging electronic health records to counterbalance these trends is an area of intense interest. The initial applications of electronic health records, as the primary data source is envisioned for observational studies, embedded pragmatic or post-marketing registry-based randomized studies, or comparative effectiveness studies. Advancing this approach to randomized clinical trials, electronic health records may potentially be used to assess study feasibility, to facilitate patient recruitment, and streamline data collection at baseline and follow-up. Ensuring data security and privacy, overcoming the challenges associated with linking diverse systems and maintaining infrastructure for repeat use of high quality data, are some of the challenges associated with using electronic health records in clinical research. Collaboration between academia, industry, regulatory bodies, policy makers, patients, and electronic health record vendors is critical for the greater use of electronic health records in clinical research. This manuscript identifies the key steps required to advance the role of electronic health records in cardiovascular clinical research.</p

Propranolol in the treatment of infantile haemangiomas:lessons from the European Propranolol In the Treatment of Complicated Haemangiomas (PITCH) Taskforce survey

Oral propranolol is widely prescribed as first line treatment for infantile haemangiomas (IHs) and anecdotally prescribing practice differs widely between centres

Safety of Treatment Regimens Containing Bedaquiline and Delamanid in the endTB Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Safety of treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR/RR-TB) can be an obstacle to treatment completion. Evaluate safety of longer MDR/RR-TB regimens containing bedaquiline and/or delamanid. METHODS: Multicentre (16 countries), prospective, observational study reporting incidence and frequency of clinically relevant adverse events of special interest (AESIs) among patients who received MDR/RR-TB treatment containing bedaquiline and/or delamanid. The AESIs were defined a priori as important events caused by bedaquiline, delamanid, linezolid, injectables, and other commonly used drugs. Occurrence of these events was also reported by exposure to the likely causative agent. RESULTS: Among 2296 patients, the most common clinically relevant AESIs were peripheral neuropathy (26.4%), electrolyte depletion (26.0%), and hearing loss (13.2%) with an incidence per 1000 person months of treatment, 1000 person-months of treatment 21.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 19.8-23.2), 20.7 (95% CI: 19.1-22.4), and 9.7 (95% CI: 8.6-10.8), respectively. QT interval was prolonged in 2.7% or 1.8 (95% CI: 1.4-2.3)/1000 person-months of treatment. Patients receiving injectables (N = 925) and linezolid (N = 1826) were most likely to experience events during exposure. Hearing loss, acute renal failure, or electrolyte depletion occurred in 36.8% or 72.8 (95% CI: 66.0-80.0) times/1000 person-months of injectable drug exposure. Peripheral neuropathy, optic neuritis, and/or myelosuppression occurred in 27.8% or 22.8 (95% CI: 20.9-24.8) times/1000 patient-months of linezolid exposure. CONCLUSIONS: AEs often related to linezolid and injectable drugs were more common than those frequently attributed to bedaquiline and delamanid. MDR-TB treatment monitoring and drug durations should reflect expected safety profiles of drug combinations. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02754765

Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30–50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515. Findings: Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68–0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p&lt;0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (&lt;1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (&lt;1%) deaths in the albiglutide group. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Funding: GlaxoSmithKline