Because they are economical and flexible, registries are ideal for collecting data from a wide range of patients and practice sites, generating the real-world evidence regulators and payers require to demonstrate effectiveness and safety, and to support label and coverage extensions.
However, the flexibility of registries also creates risk. To generate useable, uniform data, registries must be carefully designed and administered. Consider these seven factors to design and launch a successful registry.
1. Consider Potential Analytical Issues
The goal of a registry is to answer questions about how treatments perform in the real world. These questions are typically specific and often examine diverse factors, such as effectiveness by patient group, effectiveness compared with standard of care or other treatments, patient function and quality of life, and impact on the use of other services and overall care costs.
Not collecting the right data, or enough data, to support valid statistical analyses to answer these questions can lead to study failure. It is important to carefully consider analytical issues as you design your registry to ensure it can address critical questions.
First, clearly define all the variables to be collected and identify how they will be collected. At the same time, develop your statistical analysis plan, to understand what data are required to answer your questions, and the timeframe and sample size needed to adequately power your analysis. Second, think about how you will address any confounding issues, for example, through stratification, propensity scores or matching, to ensure your analytic design is fit for purpose.
2. Address Known Biases
It is critical to identify and address all known biases at the design stage, to help prevent interpretation problems later. Potential bias sources include patient selection practices within sites, as well as systematic differences among sites, such as between practice specialties, patient populations served, and community and academic settings.
3. Broad Entry Criteria
Ensuring your disease registry is not limited to a specific treatment will facilitate a more robust range of comparisons, and enhance your registry’s credibility and generalizability to the target population. However, using such broad entry criteria may show your treatment is not the best, so be prepared to address this risk.
4. Optimal Ratio of Incident and Prevalent Cases
In many cases, it would be ideal to enrol only newly diagnosed cases to ensure comparability of results across the study population. However, you may need to enrol previously diagnosed cases to reach an adequate sample size or broaden a study’s scope for comparison purposes.
Consider your study objectives and analytic requirements when balancing between newly diagnosed and existing patients. Identify patients by diagnosis status at enrolment so analyses can be run with or without either group.
5. Targeted Data Collection
Carefully balance how much data you collect for your study objectives against the cost of collecting those data. Collecting only the data you plan to analyse will increase efficiency. Gathering more data might allow you to answer additional interesting questions, but can also burden sites and patients, which may drive up attrition and curtail recruitment. Collect both clinical and patient-reported data, since neither can substitute for the other.
6. Automate Data Collection Wherever Possible
You can enrich your registry at a relatively low cost by automating the capture of objective medical data such as labs, prescription refills, and hospital and emergency room utilization.
Automating capture of broader data, such as progress notes and discharge summaries, directly from electronic medical records also may reduce ongoing data collection costs when it is possible, though initial costs to set up this capability may be higher if it doesn’t already exist in your study sites.
7. Control Data Access
Create a single analysis team and restrict data access to this team only. This helps prevent data misinterpretation and poor-quality analysis that may undercut your findings.
A registry’s success hinges on well-reasoned design and sound data collection practices. Considering the factors above will help ensure your registry will meet research and product development requirements, and maximise product value – though this requires considerable late-stage study expertise.
An experienced partner can help. ICON has developed and successfully conducted more than 100 registries, including clarifying critical research questions, developing study designs that address them, recruiting and monitoring sites, and collecting and analysing registry data. Contact our experts for a consultation on your registry and other post-market clinical study needs.
In this section
-
Digital Disruption
-
Digital Disruption whitepaper
- AI and clinical trials
-
Clinical trial data anonymisation and data sharing
-
Clinical Trial Tokenisation
-
Closing the evidence gap: The value of digital health technologies in supporting drug reimbursement decisions
-
Digital disruption in biopharma
-
Disruptive Innovation
- Remote Patient Monitoring
-
Personalising Digital Health
- Real World Data
-
The triad of trust: Navigating real-world healthcare data integration
-
Digital Disruption whitepaper
-
Patient Centricity
-
Agile Clinical Monitoring
-
Capturing the voice of the patient in clinical trials
-
Charting the Managed Access Program Landscape
-
Developing Nurse-Centric Medical Communications
- Diversity and inclusion in clinical trials
-
Exploring the patient perspective from different angles
-
Patient safety and pharmacovigilance
-
A guide to safety data migrations
-
Taking safety reporting to the next level with automation
-
Outsourced Pharmacovigilance Affiliate Solution
-
The evolution of the Pharmacovigilance System Master File: Benefits, challenges, and opportunities
-
Sponsor and CRO pharmacovigilance and safety alliances
-
Understanding the Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report
-
A guide to safety data migrations
-
Patient voice survey
-
Patient Voice Survey - Decentralised and Hybrid Trials
-
Reimagining Patient-Centricity with the Internet of Medical Things (IoMT)
-
Using longitudinal qualitative research to capture the patient voice
-
Agile Clinical Monitoring
-
Regulatory Intelligence
-
An innovative approach to rare disease clinical development
- EU Clinical Trials Regulation
-
Using innovative tools and lean writing processes to accelerate regulatory document writing
-
Current overview of data sharing within clinical trial transparency
-
Global Agency Meetings: A collaborative approach to drug development
-
Keeping the end in mind: key considerations for creating plain language summaries
-
Navigating orphan drug development from early phase to marketing authorisation
-
Procedural and regulatory know-how for China biotechs in the EU
-
RACE for Children Act
-
Early engagement and regulatory considerations for biotech
-
Regulatory Intelligence Newsletter
-
Requirements & strategy considerations within clinical trial transparency
-
Spotlight on regulatory reforms in China
-
Demystifying EU CTR, MDR and IVDR
-
Transfer of marketing authorisation
-
An innovative approach to rare disease clinical development
-
Therapeutics insights
- Endocrine and Metabolic Disorders
- Cardiovascular
- Cell and Gene Therapies
- Central Nervous System
-
Glycomics
- Infectious Diseases
- NASH
- Oncology
- Paediatrics
-
Respiratory
-
Rare and orphan diseases
-
Advanced therapies for rare diseases
-
Cross-border enrollment of rare disease patients
-
Crossing the finish line: Why effective participation support strategy is critical to trial efficiency and success in rare diseases
-
Diversity, equity and inclusion in rare disease clinical trials
-
Identify and mitigate risks to rare disease clinical programmes
-
Leveraging historical data for use in rare disease trials
-
Natural history studies to improve drug development in rare diseases
-
Patient Centricity in Orphan Drug Development
-
The key to remarkable rare disease registries
-
Therapeutic spotlight: Precision medicine considerations in rare diseases
-
Advanced therapies for rare diseases
-
Transforming Trials
-
Accelerating biotech innovation from discovery to commercialisation
-
Ensuring the validity of clinical outcomes assessment (COA) data: The value of rater training
-
Linguistic validation of Clinical Outcomes Assessments
-
Optimising biotech funding
- Adaptive clinical trials
-
Best practices to increase engagement with medical and scientific poster content
-
Decentralised clinical trials
-
Biopharma perspective: the promise of decentralised models and diversity in clinical trials
-
Decentralised and Hybrid clinical trials
-
Practical considerations in transitioning to hybrid or decentralised clinical trials
-
Navigating the regulatory labyrinth of technology in decentralised clinical trials
-
Biopharma perspective: the promise of decentralised models and diversity in clinical trials
-
eCOA implementation
- Blended solutions insights
-
Implications of COVID-19 on statistical design and analyses of clinical studies
-
Improving pharma R&D efficiency
-
Increasing Complexity and Declining ROI in Drug Development
-
Innovation in Clinical Trial Methodologies
- Partnership insights
-
Risk Based Quality Management
-
Transforming the R&D Model to Sustain Growth
-
Accelerating biotech innovation from discovery to commercialisation
-
Value Based Healthcare
-
Strategies for commercialising oncology treatments for young adults
-
US payers and PROs
-
Accelerated early clinical manufacturing
-
Cardiovascular Medical Devices
-
CMS Part D Price Negotiations: Is your drug on the list?
-
COVID-19 navigating global market access
-
Ensuring scientific rigor in external control arms
-
Evidence Synthesis: A solution to sparse evidence, heterogeneous studies, and disconnected networks
-
Global Outcomes Benchmarking
-
Health technology assessment
-
Perspectives from US payers
-
ICER’s impact on payer decision making
-
Making Sense of the Biosimilars Market
-
Medical communications in early phase product development
-
Navigating the Challenges and Opportunities of Value Based Healthcare
-
Payer Reliance on ICER and Perceptions on Value Based Pricing
-
Payers Perspectives on Digital Therapeutics
-
Precision Medicine
-
RWE Generation Cross Sectional Studies and Medical Chart Review
-
Survey results: How to engage healthcare decision-makers
-
The affordability hurdle for gene therapies
-
The Role of ICER as an HTA Organisation
-
Strategies for commercialising oncology treatments for young adults
-
Blog
-
Videos
-
Webinar Channel