Lessons from the TASTE trial Prospective Registry based Randomized Clinical Trials (R-RCT) – a new concept for clinical research Stefan James, Uppsala University Sweden SWEDE HEART Which Treatment is Best for Whom? High-Quality Evidence is Scarce 3 Tricoci P et al. JAMA 2009;301:831-41 Level of Evidence A Current Guidelines AF 11.7% Heart failure 26.4% PAD 15.3% STEMI 13.5% Perioperative 12.0% Secondary prevention 22.9% Stable angina 6.4% SV arrhythmias 6.1% UA/NSTEMI Valvular disease 23.6% 0.3% VA/SCD 9.7% PCI 11.0% CABG 19.0% Pacemaker 4.9% Radionuclide imaging 4.8% 0% 10% 20% 30% Thrombus aspiration in Sweden SCAAR SWEDE HEART TAPAS / Swedish registry data TA+PCI (N=3 666) PCI alone (N=16 417) HR (95% CI): 1.21 (1.08-1.35) Vlaar, P.J. et al. The Lancet 2008; 371:1915-20 Fröbert, O. et al. Int J Cardiol. 2010; 145:572-3 Register studies Obeservational studies (None-inverventional) Strengths • Ideal for description of standars • Unselected patient populations –generalizable • Large number of events – makes it possible to identify rare events • Inexpensive Weaknesses • Data quality variable and questionable • Cannot be used for comparative outcomes research • Confounding factors can not be adjusted for despite advanced statistical models Randomized Controlled/Clinical Trials - RCT Non randomized Observational studies Randomized Studies (RCT) Randomized Clinical Trials- RCT Strengths Correctly designed studies with adequate power are gold standard Extinguishes confounding Weaknesses Highly selected populations due to exclusion criteria Often selected specialized study centers Often surrogate endpoints Long time to plan and complete Expensive Often sponsored by industry- only studies with economic interest will be performed SWEDE HEART Register based Randomized Clinical trials- R-RCT Is a prosective randomized trial but it uses a clinical registry for one or several major functions for trial conduct. Registry based Randomized Clinical trials - R-RCT Strengths • Correctly designed studies with adequate power are gold standard • Extinguishes confounding • Unselected patient populations –generalizable • Large number of events – makes it possible to identify rare events • Inexpensive Weaknesses • Data quality lower • Variable definition Number of cases annually: 80 000 RIKS-HIA 73 CCU hospitals, 100% SCAAR 30 PCI hospitals, 100% Percutaneous valves 7 hospitals, 100% Heart surgery 7 hospitals, 100% Secondary prevention 65 hospitals, 85% >200 variables (Baseline data, procedural and outcome measures) At monitoring: 95-96% agreement between files and registry. SWEDE HEART Name, personal ID number Data entry on line by the operator Administrative data Automatic linkage with population registry Clinical background and prior CV disease Automated data checks Angiographic background data Two questions need to be answered: Did the patient consent orally? Are inclusion and no exclusion criteria met? Did the patient consent? Are inclusion and exclusion crieteria met? Information for consent Did the patient consent? Are inclusion and exclusion crieteria met? Randomize and store data Did the patient consent? Are inclusion and exclusion crieteria met? TASTE inclusion rate Patients All primary PCI:s Randomized 7244 patients Date TASTE and previous studies TASTE TASTE TAPAS JETSTENT AIMI INFUSE-AMI VAMPIRE PREPARE Chevalier Kaltoft MUSTELA X AMINE ST PIHRATE EXPIRA DEAR-MI Liistro 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 Number of patients 5000 6000 7000 8000 TASTE trial enrollment flow chart Enrolled in Denmark N=247 All patients with STEMI in Sweden and Iceland undergoing primary or rescue PCI. N=11 709 *) Enrolled in TASTE N=7259 Erroneous enrollments N=15 Not enrolled N=4697 Randomized in TASTE N=7244 N=3621 assigned to thrombus aspiration N=3623 assigned to conventional PCI N=3399 underwent thrombus aspiration N=222 underwent conventional PCI N=3445 underwent conventional PCI N=178 underwent thrombus aspiration N=3621 were followed up N=3623 were followed up N=1162 underwent thrombus aspiration N=1162 were followed up N=3535 underwent conventional PCI N=3535 were followed up All-cause mortality up to 1 year HR up to 1 year 0.94 (0.78 – 1.15), P=0.57 HR up to 30 days 0.94 (0.72 - 1.22), P=0.63 Stent thrombosis Reinfarction 2.7 2.7 HR 1 year 0.97 (0.73 – 1.28), P=0.81 HR 30 days 0.61 (0.34 - 1.07), P=0.09 HR 1 year 0.84 (0.50 – 1.40), P=0.51 HR 30 days 0.47 (0.20 - 1.02), P=0.06 Lagerqvist NEJM 2014 R-RCT vs. classical RCT New concept for clinical research Combines the advantages of a clinical registry and randomized study Complement to classical RCT –No substitute •RRCT •Evaluation of therapeutic options available/used in routine clinical care RCT Approval of new pharmaceutical agents and medical devices What can a registry do? Some or all parts of trial • • • • • • Identify patients Randomize Collect baseline and procedure characteristics (CRF) Assist with and collect consent forms Identify clinical endpoints (endpoint detection) Control clinical outcome events (adjudication, CEC) Study design RCT R-RCT Strategy + Device – CE mark, used + Device, first in man + Approved drugs used in clinical practise Drugs for new indication + + New drugs + + Study design • Simple hypotesis, one question- one answer • • • • • Sub-studies limited and simple Treatment alternatives available Well defined randomized options Open lable with blinded evaluation of events (PROBE) Blind, placebo controlled? Endpoints - Well defined, death optimal Clinical Complete Available (Delay for Swedish hospital admission registry) - Central clinical event committee (CEC) is needed if not well defined events- particularly for open label trials Data base Other national registries (PAR, LM, ) Clincial register (variabler ex. personual ID) Extra study specific variables Informed consent Randomisation code Incl-/exclusion critera Study database Alla variabler Personal ID replaced to study coode Cannot be changed Analyse databas Personal ID replced with study code Relevant registry variables Available Available for registry staff/ PI Possibility to remove patients from registry Available for registry staff/ for registry staff/trialists Not possible to remove patients from a trial Data checks All patients kept untial behålls tills ev återtaget samtycke Study design Eligible patient*: After informed consent 1:1 online randomisation in ambulance or ED Oxygen *Inclusion criteria: • symptoms suggestive of AMI within 6h • SpO2 ≥ 90% • ≥ 30y • ECG changes indicating ischemia and/or elevated troponin levels Air 6l/min for (6-)12h via Oxymask Primary Endpoint: 1-year total mortality Additional secondary endpoint and sub studies Data analysis through SWEDEHEART registry and national mortality registry Ongoing R-RCT VALIDATE (n=6000) Bivalirudin versus Heparin in NST and ST- Elevation myocardial infarction in patients on modern antiplatelet therapy in SWEDEHEART, DETOX-AMI (n=7000) DETermination of the role of OXygen in Acute Myocardial Infarction, SWEDEPAD (n=2480) SWEdish Drug Elution trial in Peripheral Arterial Disease. DES vs BMS and DEB vs POBA. IFR SWEDEHEART (n=2000) Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve in ACS PROSPECT-2 (n=1200, hybrid trial) Providing Regional Observations to Study Predictors of Events in the Coronary Tree. Evaluate future events from cholesterol plaques detected by near infrared spectroscopi DISCO (n=2480) Evaluate if patients with out of hospital cardiac arrest should undergo routine coronary angiography U-CARE (n=500) Evaluation of internet based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) versus usual care in patients with depression/anxiety post MI. Conclusions • Large need for randomized trials (RCT) particularly for the evaluation of strategies, devices, pharmacological therapies • Classical RCTs are often not performed in broad representative patient populations • The national clinical registries are strong networks for collaboration and enroll complete patient populations • Prospective Registry based Randomized Clinical Trials (RRCT) is a new opportunity for clinical research • RRCT is ideal for one clinically important hypothesis with reliable hard endpoints