Abstract
Randomized clinical trials provide the foundation of clinical evidence to guide physicians in their selection of treatment options. Importantly, randomization is the only reliable method to control for confounding factors when comparing treatment groups. However, randomized trials have limitations, including the increasingly prohibitive costs of conducting adequately powered studies. Local and national regulatory requirements, delays in approval, and unnecessary trial processes have led to increased costs and decreased efficiency. Another limitation is that clinical trials involve selected patients who are treated according to protocols that might not represent real-world practice. A possible solution is registry-based randomized clinical trials. By including a randomization module in a large inclusive clinical registry with unselected consecutive enrolment, the advantages of a prospective randomized trial can be combined with the strengths of a large-scale all-comers clinical registry. We believe that prospective registry-based randomized clinical trials are a powerful tool for conducting studies efficiently and cost-effectively.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Steg, P. G., James, S. K. & Gersh, B. J. 2012 ESC STEMI guidelines and reperfusion therapy: evidence-based recommendations, ensuring optimal patient management. Heart 99, 1156–1157 (2013).
O'Gara, P. T. et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 127, e362–e425 (2013).
Tricoci, P., Allen, J. M., Kramer, J. M., Califf, R. M. & Smith, S. C. Jr. Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 301, 831–841 (2009).
Wiviott, S. D. et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N. Eng. J. Med. 357, 2001–2015 (2007).
Carlsson, J. et al. Outcome of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stenting used according to on- and off-label criteria. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 53, 1389–1398 (2009).
Reith, C. et al. Randomized clinical trials—removing unnecessary obstacles. N. Eng. J. Med. 369, 1061–1065 (2013).
Duley, L. et al. Specific barriers to the conduct of randomized trials. Clin. Trials 5, 40–48 (2008).
Eapen, Z. J., Lauer, M. S. & Temple, R. J. The imperative of overcoming barriers to the conduct of large, simple trials. JAMA 311, 1397–1398 (2014).
Jernberg, T. et al. The Swedish web-system for enhancement and development of evidence-based care in heart disease evaluated according to recommended therapies (SWEDEHEART). Heart 96, 1617–1621 (2010).
James, S. K. et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in Sweden. N. Eng. J. Med. 360, 1933–1945 (2009).
Lagerqvist, B. et al. Long-term outcomes with drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in Sweden. N. Eng. J. Med. 356, 1009–1019 (2007).
Bondesson, P. et al. Comparison of two drug-eluting balloons: a report from the SCAAR registry. EuroIntervention 8, 444–449 (2012).
Graham, D. J. et al. Cardiovascular, bleeding, and mortality risks in elderly Medicare patients treated with dabigatran or warfarin for non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Circulation 131, 157–164 (2015).
Benson, K. & Hartz, A. J. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N. Eng. J. Med. 342, 1878–1886 (2000).
James, S., Frobert, O. & Lagerqvist, B. Cardiovascular registries: a novel platform for randomised clinical trials. Heart 98, 1329–1331 (2012).
Lauer, M. S. & D'Agostino, R. B. Sr. The randomized registry trial—the next disruptive technology in clinical research? N. Eng. J. Med. 369, 1579–1581 (2013).
Fröbert, O. et al. Thrombus Aspiration in ST-Elevation myocardial infarction in Scandinavia (TASTE trial): a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical registry trial based on the Swedish angiography and angioplasty registry (SCAAR) platform. Study design and rationale. Am. Heart J. 160, 1042–1048 (2010).
Lagerqvist, B. et al. Outcomes 1 year after thrombus aspiration for myocardial infarction. N. Eng. J. Med. 371, 1111–1120 (2014).
Harnek, J. et al. The 2011 outcome from the Swedish Health Care Registry on Heart Disease (SWEDEHEART). Scand. Cardiovas. J. 47 (Suppl.), 1–10 (2013).
Fröbert, O. et al. Thrombus aspiration during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N. Eng. J. Med. 369, 1587–1597 (2013).
Thuesen, L. et al. Event detection using population-based health care databases in randomized clinical trials: a novel research tool in interventional cardiology. Clin. Epidemiol. 19, 357–361 (2013).
Devereaux, P. J. & Yusuf, S. When it comes to trials, do we get what we pay for? N. Eng. J. Med. 369, 1962–1963 (2013).
Thuesen, L. et al. Event detection using population-based health care databases in randomized clinical trials: a novel research tool in interventional cardiology. Clin. Epidemiol. 5, 357–361 (2013).
Moussa, I. et al. The NCDR CathPCI Registry: a US national perspective on care and outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention. Heart 99, 297–303 (2013).
Hess, C. N. et al. Embedding a randomized clinical trial into an ongoing registry infrastructure: unique opportunities for efficiency in design of the Study of Access site For Enhancement of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Women (SAFE-PCI for Women). Am.Heart J. 166, 421–428 (2013).
Hofmann, R. et al. DETermination of the role of Oxygen in suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction trial. Am. Heart J. 167, 322–328 (2014).
Swedish Population Registry. Swedish Tax Agency [online], (2015).
US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov [online], (2015).
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Research We Support [online], (2014).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All the authors researched data for the article, substantially contributed to discussion of content, wrote, and reviewed and edited the manuscript before submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
S.J. has received institutional research grants from Medtronic, Terumo, and Vascular Solutions for the conduct of the TASTE trial. The other authors declare no competing interests.
PowerPoint slides
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
James, S., Rao, S. & Granger, C. Registry-based randomized clinical trials—a new clinical trial paradigm. Nat Rev Cardiol 12, 312–316 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2015.33
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2015.33
This article is cited by
-
“Nothing to lose and the possibility of gaining”: a qualitative study on the feasibility and acceptability of registry-based randomised controlled trials among cancer patients and clinicians
Trials (2023)
-
Artificial intelligence publications: synthetic data, patients, and papers
International Orthopaedics (2023)
-
Artificial intelligence in spine surgery
International Orthopaedics (2023)
-
Genotype-stratified treatment for monogenic insulin resistance: a systematic review
Communications Medicine (2023)
-
Evidenzbasierte Arzneimittelversorgung bei Seltenen Erkrankungen: die Rolle der Digitalisierung
Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz (2022)