AzTrials
AzTrials

Healthcare ConsumptionCOMERENCT03011411

Comparison of Methods to Collect Healthcare Consumption Data of Patients in Clinical Trials With an Economic Evaluation

An observational study of Healthcare Consumption, run by Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris at 1 site in France.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Pragmatic study comparing historical data from usual collection tools to medical administrative databases (local / national PMSI and CRF / SNIIRAM). There are 3 phases to the data collection: 1. Collection of hospitalization data from the local PMSI and outpatient data from CRF 2. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Healthcare Consumption
How many people
1,000 participants
Where
1 siteFrance
Study dates
Jan 2008to Jun 2017
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Study population: Patient with an initial hospital stay during which the innovative treatment strategy was implemented

Who may be able to join

  • Among patients of the source population, patients were included if:
  • Their initial hospital stay (the one during which the innovative treatment strategy was implemented) was found in the local PMSI
  • A probabilistic matching with the national PMSI is possible with a probability equal to 1 (in order to compare the data from the usual collections to the gold standard methods).

Who cannot join

  • We excluded patients whose initial hospital stay found in the national PMSI was not linkable with other admissions due to a coding error.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

France1 site
  • Hôpital HOTEL DIEU

    Paris, 75004

Other trials in France

About this study

Pragmatic study comparing historical data from usual collection tools to medical administrative databases (local / national PMSI and CRF / SNIIRAM). There are 3 phases to the data collection:

  1. Collection of hospitalization data from the local PMSI and outpatient data from CRF
  2. Collection of hospitalization data in the national PMSI with a probabilistic matching between local and national PMSI data
  3. Collection of outpatient consumption data from SNIIRAM after matching of data from the national PMSI to the SNIIRAM.
Read the detailed description

In studies assessing therapeutic interventions, an economic evaluation requires the collection of patients' healthcare consumption. Two methods are primarily used in accordance with the recommendations of the National Authority for Health (HAS): case report forms (CRF) for ambulatory care and the local hospital discharge databases (local PMSI) - extracted from participating centers - for hospital care. However, these conventional methods have limits. The first is a declarative and mostly retrospective collection, often misinformed and unverifiable. The second provides high quality data but is far from exhaustive as it only concerns hospitalizations that occurred in the participating center, not those that occurred in other hospitals.

In France, medical administrative databases SNIIRAM (all care reimbursed by the statutory health insurance) and national PMSI (all hospital care) are the "gold standards" for collecting consumer personal care. However, the administrative difficulties associated with accessing these databases prevent researchers from extracting routine care consumption data from these databases for health economic studies, despite the fact that the unreliability of the conventional methods has been objectified in a small number of studies in the literature. These studies are few, have been conducted abroad and seek to compare declarative collections to non-exhaustive medical and administrative data. Moreover, they compare only the number of events collected and not the implication for economic evaluations using those numbers, limiting the applicability of their results to economic assessments.

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of usual collection tools compared to the gold standards (medical and administrative databases) for estimating consumption of inpatient and outpatient care in health economic evaluations. The secondary objectives are to evaluate the impact of the potential underestimation of healthcare consumption on the estimated costs and results of economic assessments by studying the variation of the calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the conclusion of evaluation.

The COMERE population comes from studies in which an economic evaluation for an innovative therapeutic strategy was conducted by the principal investigators's research unity. These studies include at the minimum a collection of hospital care consumption. This data collection must be over by the time for the start of the project. The procedure code and studied pathology alone allow the investigators to identify patients in the national PMSI with a probability greater than 0.9. When adding other information available in the local PMSI, this probability reaches 0.99. The principal investigators of the studies agreed on the use of data from their studies in the context of this research project. Overall, among the studies carried out in our unit, 12 projects funded by the Ministry of Health's program supporting funds for expensive innovative technology (STIC) and 1 national registry matched the study's criteria and were retained. Of these 13 studies: 13 have collected data on hospital care consumption and 8 collected data on ambulatory care consumption. In total, these studies included 87 separate centers and 6,928 patients of which 2,661 have an ambulatory care collection. Their data are completely anonymous.

Keywords
methods, qualitative research

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. the average ratio of the number of hospital stays collected by the usual method / number collected by the gold standard method

    the performance of the hospital care consumption collection by the local PMSI: the average ratio of the number of hospital stays (initial and re-hospitalizations) for a patient during the study follow-up period collected through the local PMSI on the number of hospital stays for this patient over the same period collected with the national PMSI.

    Measured: 1 day

  2. the average ratio of the number of ambulatory acts performed for a patient collected by the usual method / number collected by the gold standard method.

    the performance of the outpatient care consumption by the CRF: the average ratio of the number of ambulatory acts performed for a patient during the study follow-up period collected by the CRF on the number of acts for the same patient extracted from the SNIIRAM over the same period.

    Measured: 1 day

Secondary outcomes (4)
  1. Ratio of the cost estimated with the conventional method / estimated with the gold standard

    The secondary endpoints are the following:

    1. The ratio of the cost associated with hospital care consumption estimated using data collected by the usual method (local PMSI) on the cost of that consumption estimated using the gold standard method (national PMSI);
    2. The ratio of the cost associated with outpatient care consumption estimated using data collected by the usual method (CRF) on the cost of that consumption estimated using data collected with the gold standard method (SNIIRAM);

    Measured: 1 day

  2. Variation in the ICER with both methods (%)

    The secondary endpoints are the following: The change in the ICER, i.e. the difference between the ICER estimated from the usual method of collection and those estimated using the gold standard method

    Measured: 1 day

  3. Proportion of studies in which the conclusion would change

    The secondary endpoints are the following: The proportion of studies in which there is a change in the conclusion when the performance of the tools used to collect care consumption is taken into account, in particular in probabilistic sensitivity analyses

    Measured: 1day

  4. Investigation of the "center" effect and/or "study" effect in the data corresponding to the primary endpoint using intraclass coefficient

    The secondary endpoints are the following: The search for an effect of the hierarchical data structure ("study" effect and "center" effect) on the extent of the variations observed in the primary endpoint.

    Measured: 1 day

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted5 Jan 2017 (estimated)
  2. Study startJan 2008
  3. Primary completionJan 2017 (estimated)
  4. Study completionJun 2017 (estimated)

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrolment
1,000 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03011411
Sponsor's protocol ID
PREPS-13-0071
Acronym
COMERE
Status last verified
Dec 2016
First submitted
12 Dec 2016
Last updated
5 Jan 2017
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
Individual data sharing
Undecided

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Healthcare Consumption, run by Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris at 1 site in France.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 5 Jan 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in France. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

the average ratio of the number of hospital stays collected by the usual method / number collected by the gold standard method (time frame: 1 day). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 5 Jan 2017.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in