Bill Karanatsios

Traditional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have long been considered the gold standard for evaluating clinical interventions. However, registry-based

Background: Traditional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in clinical research. Traditional RCTs however are complex, expensive and have low external validity. Registry-based randomised controlled trials (RRCTs) are an emerging alternative approach that integrates the internal validity of a traditional RCT with the external validity of a clinical registry by recruiting more real-world patients and leveraging an existing registry platform for data collection. As RRCTs are a novel research design, there is limited understanding of the RRCT landscape in Australia. This qualitative study aims to explore the RRCT landscape in Australia including current capacity and capabilities, and to identify challenges and opportunities for conducting RRCTs. Methods: We conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with 18 clinician researchers, 6 research program managers and 6 research governance officers. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We analysed the data using thematic analysis. Results: We identified four overarching themes: (1) understanding of the RRCT methodology concept and knowledge of Australian clinical registries and RRCT landscape; (2) enablers and barriers in the uptake and conduct of RRCTs; (3) ethics and governance requirements impacting the conduct of RRCTs and (4) recommendations for the promotion, support and implementation of RRCTs. Understanding of and ability to define an RRCT varied considerably amongst participants, as did their appreciation of the role the registry should play in supporting these trials. Lack of ongoing funding to support both registries and RRCTs, along with low awareness and minimal education around this methodology, were identified as the predominant barriers to the uptake of RRCTs in Australia. The simplicity of RRCTs, specifically their pragmatic nature and lower costs, was identified as one of their best attributes. There was consensus that inadequate funding, onerous research governance requirements and poor awareness of this methodology were currently prohibitive in enticing clinicians and researchers to conduct RRCTs. Recommendations to improve the uptake of RRCTs included establishing a sustainable funding model for both registries and RRCTs, harmonising governance requirements across jurisdictions and increasing awareness of RRCTs through education initiatives. Conclusions: RRCTs in Australia are an evolving methodology with slow but steady uptake across a number of clinical disciplines. Whilst RRCTs are increasingly identified as a beneficial alternative methodology to evaluate and improve current standards of care, several barriers to effective RRCT implementation were identified. Creating greater awareness of the benefits of RRCTs across a number of stakeholders to help secure ongoing funding and addressing both registry and RRCT governance challenges are two essential steps in enhancing the uptake of RRCTs in Australia and internationally.

Background Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in clinical research. RCTs however are complex, expensive and have low external validity. Registry-based randomised controlled trials (RRCTs) are an emerging alternative approach that integrate the internal validity of an RCT with the external validity of a clinical registry by recruiting more real-world patients and leveraging an existing registry platform for data collection. As RRCTs are a novel research design, there is limited understanding of the RRCT landscape in Australia. This qualitative study aims to explore the RRCT landscape in Australia including current capacity and capabilities, and to identify challenges and opportunities for conducting RRCTs. Methods We conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with 18 Clinician researchers, 6 Research Administrators, and 6 Research Governance Officers. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We analysed the data using thematic analysis. Results We identified four overarching themes: 1) Understanding of the RRCT methodology concept and knowledge of Australian clinical registries and RRCT landscape; 2) Enablers and barriers in the uptake and conduct of RRCTs; 3) Ethics and governance requirements impacting the conduct of RRCTs and 4) Recommendations for the promotion, support and implementation of RRCTs. Understanding of and ability to define an RRCT varied considerably amongst participants, as did their appreciation of the role the registry should play in supporting these trials. Lack of ongoing funding to support both registries and RRCTs, along with low awareness and minimal education around this methodology, were identified as the predominant barriers to the uptake of RRCTs in Australia. The simplicity of RRCTs, specifically their pragmatic nature and lower costs were identified as one of their best attributes. There was consensus that inadequate funding, onerous research governance requirements and poor awareness of this methodology were currently prohibitive in enticing clinicians and researchers to conduct RRCTs. Recommendations to improve the uptake of RRCTs included establishing a sustainable funding model for both registries and RRCTs, harmonising governance requirements across jurisdictions and increasing awareness of RRCTs through education initiatives. Conclusions RRCTs in Australia are an evolving methodology with slow but steady uptake across a number of clinical disciplines. Whilst RRCTs are increasingly identified as a beneficial alternative methodology to evaluate and improve current standards of care, several barriers to effective RRCT implementation were identified. Creating greater awareness of the benefits of RRCTs across a number of stakeholders to help secure ongoing funding, and addressing both registry and RRCT governance challenges are two essential steps in enhancing the uptake of RRCTs in Australia and internationally.

Linking very large, consented birth cohorts to birthing hospitals clinical data could elucidate the lifecourse outcomes of health care and exposures during the pregnancy, birth and newborn periods. Unfortunately, cohort personally identifiable information (PII) often does not include unique identifier numbers, presenting matching challenges. To develop optimized cohort matching to birthing hospital clinical records, this pilot drew on a one-year (December 2020–December 2021) cohort for a single Australian birthing hospital participating in the whole-of-state Generation Victoria (GenV) study. For 1819 consented mother-baby pairs and 58 additional babies (whose mothers were not themselves participating), we tested the accuracy and effort of various approaches to matching. We selected demographic variables drawn from names, DOB, sex, telephone, address (and birth order for multiple births). After variable standardization and validation, accuracy rose from 10% to 99% using a deterministic-rule-based approach in 10 steps. Using cohort-specific modifications of the Australian Statistical Linkage Key (SLK-581), it took only 3 steps to reach 97% (SLK-5881) and 98% (SLK-5881.1) accuracy. We conclude that our SLK-5881 process could safely and efficiently achieve high accuracy at the population level for future birth cohort-birth hospital matching in the absence of unique identifier numbers.

Health registries are critical to understanding, benchmarking and improving quality of care for specific diseases and conditions, but face hurdles including funding, bias towards clinical rather than population samples, lack of pre-morbid and outcomes data, and absent cross-registry harmonisation and coordination. Children are particularly under-represented in registry research. This paper lays out novel principles, methods and governance to integrate diverse registries within or alongside a planned children’s mega-cohort to rapidly generate translatable evidence. GenV (Generation Victoria) will approach for recruitment parents of all newborns (estimated 150,000) over two years from mid-2021 in the state of Victoria (population 6.5 million), Australia. Its sample size and population denominator mean it will contain almost all children with uncommon or co-morbid conditions as they emerge over time. By design, it will include linked datasets, biosamples (including from pregnancy), phenotypes and participant-reported measures, all of which will span pre-morbid to long-term outcomes. We provide a vignette of a planned new registry for high-risk pregnancies to illustrate the possibilities. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to describe such a methodology designed prospectively to enhance both the clinical relevance of a large multipurpose cohort and the value and inclusivity of registries in a population.

Background: Traditional randomised controlled trials remain the gold standard for improving clinical care but they do have their limitations, including their associated high costs, high failure rate and limited external validity. An alternative methodology is the newly defined, prospective, registry-based randomised controlled trial (RRCT), where treatment and outcome data is collected in an existing registry. This scoping review explores the current literature regarding RRCTs to help identify the key design elements of RRCTs and the characteristics of clinical registries on which they are reliant on. Methods: A scoping review methodology conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines was performed. Four databases were searched for articles published from inception to June 2018: Medline; Embase; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and; Scopus. The search strategy included MeSH and text words related to RRCT. Results: We identified 2369 articles of which 75 were selected for full-text screening. Of these, only 17 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. All studies were published between 1996 and 2017 and all were investigator-initiated. Study designs were mainly multi-site comparative/effectiveness studies incorporating the use of disease registries (n = 8), procedure registries (n = 8) and a health services registry (n = 1). The low cost, reduced administrative burden and enhanced external validity of RRCTs make them an attractive research methodology which can be used to address questions of public health importance. We identified that that there are variable definitions of what constituted a RRCT and that issues related to ethical conduct and data integrity, completeness, timeliness, validation and endpoint adjudication need to be carefully addressed. Conclusion: RRCTs potentially have an important role to play in informing best clinical practice and health policy. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed to optimise the utility of this approach, including establishing universally accepted criteria for the definition of a RRCT.