Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Registry-based randomized clinical trials—a new clinical trial paradigm

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 options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Inclusion rate in the TASTE trial.18

References

  1. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wiviott, S. D. et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N. Eng. J. Med. 357, 2001–2015 (2007).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Reith, C. et al. Randomized clinical trials—removing unnecessary obstacles. N. Eng. J. Med. 369, 1061–1065 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Duley, L. et al. Specific barriers to the conduct of randomized trials. Clin. Trials 5, 40–48 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bondesson, P. et al. Comparison of two drug-eluting balloons: a report from the SCAAR registry. EuroIntervention 8, 444–449 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Benson, K. & Hartz, A. J. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N. Eng. J. Med. 342, 1878–1886 (2000).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. James, S., Frobert, O. & Lagerqvist, B. Cardiovascular registries: a novel platform for randomised clinical trials. Heart 98, 1329–1331 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lagerqvist, B. et al. Outcomes 1 year after thrombus aspiration for myocardial infarction. N. Eng. J. Med. 371, 1111–1120 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fröbert, O. et al. Thrombus aspiration during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N. Eng. J. Med. 369, 1587–1597 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hofmann, R. et al. DETermination of the role of Oxygen in suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction trial. Am. Heart J. 167, 322–328 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Swedish Population Registry. Swedish Tax Agency [online], (2015).

  28. US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov [online], (2015).

  29. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Research We Support [online], (2014).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

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

Correspondence to Stefan James.

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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2015.33

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing