Search

Purpose Regulatory authorities including the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency are encouraging to conduct clinical trials using routinely collected data. The aim of the TransFAIR experimental comparison was to evaluate, within real-life conditions, the ability of the Electronic Health Records to Electronic Data Capture (EHR2EDC) module to accurately transfer from EHRs to EDC systems patients’ data of clinical studies in various therapeutic areas.Methods A prospective study including six clinical trials from three different sponsors running in three hospitals across Europe has been conducted. The same data from the six studies were collected using both traditional manual data entry and the EHR2EDC module. The outcome variable was the percentage of data accurately transferred using the EHR2EDC technology. This percentage was calculated considering all collected data and the data in four domains: demographics (DM), vital signs (VS), laboratories (LB) and concomitant medications (CM).Results Overall, 6143 data points (39.6% of the data in the scope of the TransFAIR study and 16.9% when considering all data) were accurately transferred using the platform. LB data represented 65.4% of the data transferred; VS data, 30.8%; DM data, 0.7% and CM data, 3.1%.Conclusions The objective of accurately transferring at least 15% of the manually entered trial datapoints using the EHR2EDC module was achieved. Collaboration and codesign by hospitals, industry, technology company, supported by the Institute of Innovation through Health Data was a success factor in accomplishing these results. Further work should focus on the harmonisation of data standards and improved interoperability to extend the scope of transferable EHR data.

Summary: Background: Adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were pre-specified to be monitored for the COVID-19 vaccines. Some AESIs are not only associated with the vaccines, but with COVID-19. Our aim was to characterise the incidence rates of AESIs following SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients and compare these to historical rates in the general population. Methods: A multi-national cohort study with data from primary care, electronic health records, and insurance claims mapped to a common data model. This study's evidence was collected between Jan 1, 2017 and the conclusion of each database (which ranged from Jul 2020 to May 2022). The 16 pre-specified prevalent AESIs were: acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell's palsy, deep vein thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis, Guillain- Barré syndrome, haemorrhagic stroke, non-haemorrhagic stroke, immune thrombocytopenia, myocarditis/pericarditis, narcolepsy, pulmonary embolism, transverse myelitis, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia. Age-sex standardised incidence rate ratios (SIR) were estimated to compare post-COVID-19 to pre-pandemic rates in each of the databases. Findings: Substantial heterogeneity by age was seen for AESI rates, with some clearly increasing with age but others following the opposite trend. Similarly, differences were also observed across databases for same health outcome and age-sex strata. All studied AESIs appeared consistently more common in the post-COVID-19 compared to the historical cohorts, with related meta-analytic SIRs ranging from 1.32 (1.05 to 1.66) for narcolepsy to 11.70 (10.10 to 13.70) for pulmonary embolism. Interpretation: Our findings suggest all AESIs are more common after COVID-19 than in the general population. Thromboembolic events were particularly common, and over 10-fold more so. More research is needed to contextualise post-COVID-19 complications in the longer term. Funding: None.

Abstract Background In spite of the global implementation of standardized surgical safety checklists and evidence-based practices, general surgery remains associated with a high residual risk of preventable perioperative complications and adverse events. This study was designed to validate the hypothesis that a new “Trigger Tool” represents a sensitive predictor of adverse events in general surgery. Methods An observational multicenter validation study was performed among 31 hospitals in Spain. The previously described “Trigger Tool” based on 40 specific triggers was applied to validate the predictive power of predicting adverse events in the perioperative care of surgical patients. A prediction model was used by means of a binary logistic regression analysis. Results The prevalence of adverse events among a total of 1,132 surgical cases included in this study was 31.53%. The “Trigger Tool” had a sensitivity and specificity of 86.27% and 79.55% respectively for predicting these adverse events. A total of 12 selected triggers of overall 40 triggers were identified for optimizing the predictive power of the “Trigger Tool”. Conclusions The “Trigger Tool” has a high predictive capacity for predicting adverse events in surgical procedures. We recommend a revision of the original 40 triggers to 12 selected triggers to optimize the predictive power of this tool, which will have to be validated in future studies.