A Systematic Review of the Use of Registry-Based Randomized Controlled Trials (R-RCTs) for Regulatory Approval and Access

Author(s)

Zhao J1, Tore Joergensen K2, Karlsdotter K3, Turkstra E4, Stankeviciute S5, MP S6, Mondonedo A7, Hakkarainen KM8, Biering-Sørensen T9, Sundström J10
1Parexel International, Stockholm, Sweden, 2Bayer Integrated Evidence Generation, Copenhagen, Denmark, 3Bayer, Barcelona, Spain, 4Parexel International, London, LON, UK, 5Parexel International, Vilnius, Lithuania, 6Parexel International, Bengaluru, India, 7Parexel International, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 8Parexel International, Gothenburg, Sweden, 9University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, 10Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

OBJECTIVES: R-RCTs are pragmatic trials utilizing registry platforms for one or more vital trial functions such as case records, data collection, randomization, or follow-up. We investigated the use of R-RCTs for regulatory approval and access.

METHODS: A systematic search of ongoing and completed R-RCTs was conducted before January 12, 2023, using ClinicalTrials.gov, Citeline’s Trialtrove, and recent systematic reviews. Details of each trial were extracted from study protocols and publications, and included whether a clinical patient registry or administrative health registry was used (for one/several major functions for trial conduct and outcomes reporting). Trials were excluded if they were prematurely terminated, or if patient registries were only used for long-term post-trial follow-up or to ascertain vital status. Nonmedical interventions (outreach/advertising, policy changes) were only included if registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or Citeline’s Trialtrove.

RESULTS: In total, 112 R-RCTs were identified, of which 68 (60.7%) used a clinical patient registry. Interventions in the 112 trials included drugs (n=37; 33.0%), surgical/medical device related (n=33; 29.5%), screening (n=7; 6.3%), vaccines (n=6; 5.4%), and others (n=29; 25.9%; e.g., advertising, outreach, complex healthcare, patient education, oxygen therapy). Of the 37 trials with drug interventions, all used approved drugs, and one was industry initiated. Most trials were conducted in the Nordic countries (n=69; 61.6%), Canada (n=11; 9.8%), or the USA (n=8; 7.1%). Twelve trials (10.7%) were conducted in more than one country, of which five (4.5%) only used an R-RCT design in the Nordic sites. Four trials (3.6%) did not report which registries were used. None of the trials with drug interventions were identified for use as primary evidence for regulatory/reimbursement decisions.

CONCLUSIONS: So far, R-RCTs have only been conducted with approved drugs. Most were conducted in the Nordic countries, and multicountry trials were rare. R-RCTs are underutilized by industry and early drug development; this motivates further exploration.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2023-11, ISPOR Europe 2023, Copenhagen, Denmark

Value in Health, Volume 26, Issue 11, S2 (December 2023)

Code

SA30

Topic

Study Approaches

Topic Subcategory

Registries

Disease

No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas

Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×