Overcoming challenges to data quality in the ASPREE clinical trial

Factors impacting clinical data and documentation quality in Australian aged care and disability services: a user-centred perspective

BACKGROUND

Research has highlighted a need to improve the quality of clinical documentation and data within aged care and disability services in Australia to support improved regulatory reporting and ensure quality and safety of services. However, the specific causes of data quality issues within aged care and disability services and solutions for optimisation are not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

This study explored aged care and disability workforce (referred to as 'data-users') experiences and perceived root causes of clinical data quality issues at a large aged care and disability services provider in Western Australia, to inform optimisation solutions.

METHODS

A purposive sample of n = 135 aged care and disability staff (including community-based and residential-based) in clinical, care, administrative and/or management roles participated in semi-structured interviews and web-based surveys. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis method, where themes and subthemes were derived.

RESULTS

Eight overarching causes of data and documentation quality issues were identified: (1) staff-related challenges, (2) education and training, (3) external barriers, (4) operational guidelines and procedures, (5) organisational practices and culture, (6) technological infrastructure, (7) systems design limitations, and (8) systems configuration-related challenges.

CONCLUSION

The quality of clinical data and documentation within aged care and disability services is influenced by a complex interplay of internal and external factors. Coordinated and collaborative effort is required between service providers and the wider sector to identify behavioural and technical optimisation solutions to support safe and high-quality care and improved regulatory reporting.

An open-source system for efficient clinical trial support: The COMET study experience

Exercise clinical trials are complex, logistically burdensome, and require a well-coordinated multi-disciplinary approach. Challenges include managing, curating, and reporting on many disparate information sources, while remaining responsive to a variety of stakeholders. The Combined Exercise Trial (COMET, NCT04848038) is a one-year comparison of three exercise modalities delivered in the community. Target enrollment is 280 individuals over 4 years. To support rigorous execution of COMET, the study team has developed a suite of scripts and dashboards to assist study stakeholders in each of their various functions. The result is a highly automated study system that preserves rigor, increases communication, and reduces staff burden. This manuscript describes system considerations and the COMET approach to data management and use, with a goal of encouraging further development and adaptation by other study teams in various fields.

Potentially inappropriate medication use is associated with increased risk of incident disability in healthy older adults

BACKGROUND

Efforts to minimize medication risks among older adults include avoidance of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). However, most PIMs research has focused on older people in aged or inpatient care, creating an evidence gap for community-dwelling older adults. To address this gap, we investigated the impact of PIMs use in the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial cohort.

METHODS

Analysis included 19,114 community-dwelling ASPREE participants aged 70+ years (65+ if US minorities) without major cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment, or significant physical disability. PIMs were defined according to a modified 2019 AGS Beers Criteria. Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to estimate the association between baseline PIMs exposure and disability-free survival, death, incident dementia, disability, and hospitalization, with adjustment for sex, age, country, years of education, frailty, average gait speed, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

At baseline, 7396 (39% of the total) participants were prescribed at least one PIM. Compared with those unexposed, participants on a PIM at baseline were at an increased risk of persistent physical disability (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21, 1.80) and hospitalization (adjusted HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.20, 1.32), but had similar rates of disability-free survival (adjusted HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.93, 1.13) and death (adjusted HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.81, 1.05). These effects did not vary by polypharmacy status in interaction analyses. PIMs exposure was associated with higher risk of disability followed by hospitalization (adjusted HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.25, 2.96) as well as vice versa (adjusted HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.15, 2.05). PPIs, anti-psychotics and benzodiazepines, were associated with increased risk of disability.

CONCLUSIONS

PIMs exposure is associated with subsequent increased risk of both incident disability and hospitalization. Increased risk of disability prior to hospitalization suggests that PIMs use may start the disability cascade in healthy older adults. Our findings emphasize the importance of caution when prescribing PIMs to older adults in otherwise good health.

Association of metformin, aspirin, and cancer incidence with mortality risk in adults with diabetes

BACKGROUND

Metformin and aspirin are commonly co-prescribed to people with diabetes. Metformin may prevent cancer, but in older people (over 70 years), aspirin has been found to increase cancer mortality. This study examined whether metformin reduces cancer mortality and incidence in older people with diabetes; it used randomization to 100 mg aspirin or placebo in the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial to quantify aspirin's impact on metformin users.

METHODS

Analysis included community-dwelling ASPREE participants (aged ≥70 years, or ≥65 years for members of US minority populations) with diabetes. Diabetes was defined as a fasting blood glucose level greater than 125 mg/dL, self-report of diabetes, or antidiabetic medication use. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to analyze the association of metformin and a metformin-aspirin interaction with cancer incidence and mortality, with adjustment for confounders.

RESULTS

Of 2045 participants with diabetes at enrollment, 965 were concurrently using metformin. Metformin was associated with a reduced cancer incidence risk (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 0.90), but no conclusive benefit for cancer mortality (adjusted HR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.43 to 1.19). Metformin users randomized to aspirin had greater risk of cancer mortality compared with placebo (HR = 2.53, 95% CI = 1.18 to 5.43), but no effect was seen for cancer incidence (HR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.64). The possible effect modification of aspirin on cancer mortality, however, was not statistically significant (interaction P = .11).

CONCLUSIONS

In community-dwelling older adults with diabetes, metformin use was associated with reduced cancer incidence. Increased cancer mortality risk in metformin users randomized to aspirin warrants further investigation.

ASPREE TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01038583.

The European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) Knowledge Hub: developing an open platform for facilitating high-quality clinical research

There is stark global inequity in health research in terms of where studies happen, who leads the research and the ultimate beneficiaries of the results generated. Despite significant efforts made, limited research ideas are conceptualised and implemented in low-resource settings to tackle diseases of poverty, and this is especially true in sub-Saharan Africa. There is strong evidence to show that the barriers to locally led research do not vary largely between disease, study type and location and can be largely solved by addressing these common gaps. The European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) was established in 2003 as a European response to the global health crisis caused by the three main poverty-related diseases HIV, tuberculosis and malaria. EDCTP has established a model of long-term sustainable capacity development integrated into clinical trials which addresses this lack of locally led research in sub-Saharan Africa, supporting the development of individual and institutional capacity and research outputs that change the management, prevention and treatment of poverty-related and neglected infectious diseases across Africa. In recognition of emergent data on what the barriers and enablers are to long-term, sustainable capabilities to run studies, EDCTP formed a new collaboration with The Global Health Network (TGHN) in September 2017, with the aim to make a set of cross-cutting tools and resources to support the planning, writing and delivery of high-quality clinical trials available to research staff wherever they are in the world, especially those in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) via TGHN platform. These new resources developed on the ‘EDCTP Knowledge Hub’ are those identified in the mixed method study described in this commentary as being key to addressing the gaps that the research community report as the most limiting elements in their ability to design and implement studies. The Knowledge Hub aims to make these tools freely available to any potential health research team in need of support and guidance in designing and running their own studies, particularly in low-resource settings. The purpose is to provide open access to the specific guidance, information and tools these teams cannot otherwise access freely. Ultimately, this will enable them to design and lead their own high-quality studies addressing local priorities with global alignment, generating new data that can change health outcomes in their communities.

Anticholinergic medication burden and cognitive function in participants of the ASPREE study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

What is the association between anticholinergic burden and specific domains of cognitive function in older adults who are initially without major cognitive impairment?

DESIGN

Post-hoc analysis of longitudinal observational data from the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) study.

PATIENTS

19,114 participants from Australia and the United States aged 70 years and older (65 years and older for US minorities) were recruited and followed for a median of 4.7 years. At enrollment, participants were free of known cardiovascular disease, major physical disability, or dementia.

MEASUREMENTS

Cognitive assessments administered at baseline and biennially at follow-up visits included the Modified Mini-Mental State examination (3MS), Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) delayed recall, Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT), and Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). Anticholinergic burden was calculated at baseline using the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB) scale and grouped as scores of 0 (no burden), 1-2 (low to moderate), or 3+ (high).

MAIN RESULTS

Linear mixed effects models were used to assess the relationship between ACB score and cognition over time. After adjusting for sex, age, education, minority status, smoking status, hypertension, diabetes, depression, chronic kidney disease, country, and frailty, participants with a high ACB score had worse performance over time for 3MS (Adjusted [Adj] B=-0.092, P=0.034), HVLT-R delayed recall (Adj B=-0.104, P<0.001), COWAT (Adj B=-0.151, P<0.001), and SDMT (Adj B=-0.129, P=0.026), than participants with an ACB score of 0. A low to moderate ACB score was also associated with worse performance over time for HVLT-R delayed recall (Adj B=-0.037, P=0.007) and COWAT (Adj B=-0.065, P=0.003), compared to those with no ACB.

CONCLUSIONS

Anticholinergic burden predicts worse cognitive function over time in initially dementia-free older adults, particularly for executive function (COWAT) and episodic memory (HVLT-R).

Design and Implementation of a Multipurpose Information System for Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation on the Basis of the Biomedical Research Integrated Domain Group Model

PURPOSE

An important obstacle to cancer research is that nearly all academic cancer centers maintain substantial collections of highly duplicative, poorly quality-assured, nonintercommunicating, difficult-to-access data repositories. It is inherently clear that this state of affairs increases costs and reduces quality and productivity of both research and nonresearch activities. We hypothesized that designing and implementing a multipurpose cancer information system on the basis of the Biomedical Research Integrated Domain (BRIDG) model developed by the National Cancer Institute and its collaborators might lessen the duplication of effort inherent in capturing, quality-assuring, and accessing data located in multiple single-purpose systems, and thereby increases productivity while reducing costs.

METHODS

We designed and implemented a core data structure on the basis of the BRIDG model and incorporated multiple entities, attributes, and functionalities to support the multipurpose functionality of the system. We used the resultant model as a foundation upon which to design and implement modules for importing preexisting data, capturing data prospectively, quality-assuring data, exporting data to analytic files, and analyzing the quality-assured data to support multiple functionalities simultaneously. To our knowledge, our system, which we refer to as the Cancer Informatics Data System, is the first multipurpose, BRIDG-harmonized cancer research information system implemented at an academic cancer center.

RESULTS

We describe the BRIDG-harmonized system that simultaneously supports patient care, teaching, research, clinical decision making, administrative decision making, mandated volume-and-outcomes reporting, clinical quality assurance, data quality assurance, and many other functionalities.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a highly quality-assured, multipurpose cancer information system on the basis of the BRIDG model at an academic center is feasible and can increase access to accurate data to support research integrity and productivity as well as nonresearch activities.

A Cohort Study of Anticholinergic Medication Burden and Incident Dementia and Stroke in Older Adults

BACKGROUND

Anticholinergic medications may increase risk of dementia and stroke, but prospective studies in healthy older people are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

Compare risk of incident dementia and stroke by anticholinergic burden among initially healthy older people.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Primary care (Australia and USA).

PARTICIPANTS

19,114 community-dwelling participants recruited for the ASPREE trial, aged 70+ years (65+ if US minorities) without major cardiovascular disease, dementia diagnosis, or Modified Mini-Mental State Examination score below 78/100.

MEASUREMENTS

Baseline anticholinergic exposure was calculated using the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB) score. Dementia was adjudicated using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders volume IV criteria, and stroke using the World Health Organization definition.

RESULTS

At baseline, 15,000 participants (79%) had an ACB score of zero, 2930 (15%) a score of 1-2, and 1184 (6%) a score of ≥ 3 (indicating higher burden). After a median follow-up of 4.7 years and adjusting for baseline covariates, a baseline ACB score of ≥ 3 was associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke (adjusted HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06, 2.35), or dementia (adjusted HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.01, 1.82), especially of mixed etiology (adjusted HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.06, 2.21). Results were similar for those exposed to moderate/highly anticholinergic medications.

LIMITATIONS

Residual confounding and reverse causality are possible. Assessment of dose or duration was not possible.

CONCLUSIONS

High anticholinergic burden in initially healthy older people was associated with increased risk of incident dementia and ischemic stroke. A vascular effect may underlie this association. These findings highlight the importance of minimizing anticholinergic exposure in healthy older people.