ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT05413447ADMINISTERUpdated Jul 23, 2024

Assessment of Digital Consultations on Clinical Impact and Efficiency

An interventional study of Digital consult in Heart Failure, sponsored by Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA). Completed at 5 sites in Netherlands. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-07-23.

Sponsored by Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA) · Not applicable, Interventional, and Supportive care

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
150
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Healthcare workers have a high workload as compared to other sectors and this burden is projected to increase due to an aging society. It is and will in the future be challenging to deliver optimal HF care because of personnel shortages, the high costs of healthcare, intensive GDMT uptitration schedules, and an epidemic rise in HF patients.This study aims to evaluate the impact of digital consultations (DC) on efficiency and clinical impact in heart failure (HF) patients.

A randomized controlled trial on multifaceted digital consults including 1) digital data sharing (e.g. exchange of pharmacotherapy use, home measured vital signs, etc), 2) patient education via an eLearning, and 3) digital guideline recommendations to treating physicians. Included patients will be randomly (1:1) assigned to the intervention group or standard care.

The ADMINISTER trial is expected to offer the first robust randomized controlled multicenter data of GDMT prescription rates, time till full GDMT optimization, time spent on healthcare, patient satisfaction and quality of life of digital consults in GDMT optimization.

Read the detailed description

Introduction: Many heart failure (HF) patients do not receive optimal guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) despite clear benefit on morbidity and mortality outcomes. Digital consultations (DC) have the potential to improve efficiency on GDMT optimization to serve the growing HF population. Hence, the investigator initiated ADMINISTER trial was designed as a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate efficacy and safety of DC in patients on HF treatment.

Methods: Patients (n = 150) diagnosed with HF with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) will be randomized to DC or standard care (1:1). The intervention group receive multifaceted digital consults including 1) digital data sharing (e.g. exchange of pharmacotherapy use, home measured vital signs, etc), 2) patient education via an eLearning, and 3) digital guideline recommendations to treating physicians. The consultations are performed remotely unless there is an indication to perform the consult physically. The primary outcome is the GDMT prescription rate score, secondary outcomes include time till full GDMT optimization, patient and clinician satisfaction, time spent on healthcare, and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire. Results will be reported in accordance to the CONSORT statement.

Conclusion: The ADMINISTER trial will offer the first randomized controlled data on GDMT prescription rates, time till full GDMT optimization, time spent on healthcare, quality of life, and patient and clinician satisfaction of the multifaceted patient and clinician targeted DC for GDMT optimization.

02

Conditions studied

  • Heart Failure

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Digital consultations, GDMT optimization, HFrEF
03

In context

Heart Failure

5,801 studies on the registry are indexed under Heart Failure; 1,222 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 150 is above the median of 72 across 3,790 interventional studies indexed under Heart Failure.

Browse Heart Failure studies →

Lead sponsor

Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA) is the lead sponsor of 532 studies on the registry; 185 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • HFrEF

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients not in possession of any attributes to perform the consults digitally
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Supportive care
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
150 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Patients receiving digital consultations

    The intervention group receive multifaceted digital consults including 1) digital data sharing (e.g. exchange of pharmacotherapy use, home measured vital signs, etc), 2) patient education via an eLearning, and 3) digital guideline recommendations to treating physicians. The consultations are performed remotely unless there is an indication to perform the consult physically.

    Combination Product: Digital consult

  • No intervention
    Standard care

    If the patient is drawn into the control group the patient will receive standard care. Clinicians are free to use all standard modes of communication, and are not specifically encouraged to use remote types of communication. The clinicians are not informed about the assignment of a patient to the control group to optimally capture remote practice.

Interventions

  • Combination productDigital consult

    Consultations will be prepared digitally using the Mychart patient portal, an elearning and questionnaires. The consultation takes place via Teams.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Prescription rate of ACE/ARNI according to the guidelines

    The treatment with ACE/ARNI in accordance to the guideline is measured at baseline and within 4 weeks after the consult. The received dose is divided by the target dose per timepoint. The score will range between a maximum of 1 (corresponding with a treatment according to the guidelines) and a minimum of 0 (corresponding with not administering the medicine). Significant differences between the two groups are determined at both timepoints.

    Time frame: 12 weeks after baseline

  2. Prescription rate of betablockers according to the guidelines

    The treatment with betablockers in accordance to the guideline is measured at baseline and within 4 weeks after the consult. The received dose is divided by the target dose per timepoint. The score will range between a maximum of 1 (corresponding with a treatment according to the guidelines) and a minimum of 0 (corresponding with not administering the medicine). Significant differences between the two groups are determined at both timepoints.

    Time frame: 12 weeks after baseline

  3. Prescription rate of MRA according to the guidelines

    The treatment with MRA in accordance to the guideline is measured at baseline and within 4 weeks after the consult. The received dose is divided by the target dose per timepoint. The score will range between a maximum of 1 (corresponding with a treatment according to the guidelines) and a minimum of 0 (corresponding with not administering the medicine). Significant differences between the two groups are determined at both timepoints.

    Time frame: 12 weeks after baseline

  4. Prescription rate of SGLT2i according to the guidelines

    The treatment with SGLT2i in accordance to the guideline is measured at baseline and within 4 weeks after the consult. The received dose is divided by the target dose per timepoint. The score will range between a maximum of 1 (corresponding with a treatment according to the guidelines) and a minimum of 0 (corresponding with not administering the medicine). Significant differences between the two groups are determined at both timepoints.

    Time frame: 12 weeks after baseline

  5. Prescription rate of periodic screening of iron insufficiency

    It is checked whether periodic (once a year) screening of iron deficiency is performed. And if the patient had iron insufficiency; it is checked whether the patient is receiving intravenous iron administration. Iron insufficiency is defined as ferritin \<100 ng/ml or ferritin \< 300 ng/ml with transferrin saturation (TSAT) \< 20%. For patients with periodic screening for iron deficiency and if appropriate supplementation, a score of 1 was assigned. Other patients will receive a score of 0. Significant differences between groups will be assessed at both timepoints.

    Time frame: 12 weeks after baseline

Secondary outcomes

  1. Patient satisfaction

    Patient satisfaction measured with the Net Promotor Score. This is a score in which the patient is asked to give a value between 1 and 10 indicating the likelihood that he/she will recommend the care given at the AUMC to other patients (1 equals unlikely and 10 likely).

    Time frame: At baseline and 12 weeks after the baseline recording

  2. Difference in summary score of Kansas city cardiomyopathy questionnaire

    Worsening of experienced HF, assessed with the "Kansas city cardiomyopathy questionnaire". This will lead to a summary score indicating the severity of the experienced heart failure. This score will range from 0 indicating a bad outcome of the questionnaire to 100 indicating a good outcome.

    Time frame: At baseline and 12 weeks after the baseline recording

  3. Time spend on healthcare

    The amount of time the patient spends on healthcare.

    Time frame: 12 weeks after baseline

  4. Amount of hospitalizations per patient

    Amount of hospitalizations is recorded for each patient and group differences between the treatment and control group are determined

    Time frame: Hospitalization are recorded from baseline until 12 weeks after baseline

  5. Healthcare satisfaction

    Clinicians will be asked to rate their satisfaction using the Net Promotor Score. This is a score in which the clinician is asked to give a value between 1 and 10 indicating the likelihood that he/she will recommend the remote care with digital consultations to other collegues (1 equals unlikely and 10 likely).

    Time frame: 12 weeks after baseline

07

Study locations

5 sites
  • Amsterdam UMC, location AMC
    Amsterdam, North Holland 1105 AZ, Netherlands
  • Cardiology Centers of the Netherlands
    Amsterdam, North Holland 1105 BJ, Netherlands
  • Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • Red Cross Hospital
    Beverwijk, Netherlands
  • UMC Utrecht
    Utrecht, 3584 CX, Netherlands
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Man JP, Koole MAC, Meregalli PG, Handoko ML, Stienen S, de Lange FJ, Winter MM, Schijven MP, Kok WEM, Kuipers DI, van der Harst P, Asselbergs FW, Zwinderman AH, Dijkgraaf MGW, Chamuleau SAJ, Schuuring MJ. Digital consults in heart failure care: a randomized controlled trial. Nat Med. 2024 Oct;30(10):2907-2913. doi: 10.1038/s41591-024-03238-6. Epub 2024 Aug 31. PubMed 39217271 ↗
09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Ran from Sep 2022 to primary completion in Jun 2024, 21 months.

Of 1,018 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Heart Failure, half reached primary completion within 29 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 16 and three quarters within 50. This study's 21 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 1,220 studies reached it within 31 months; a quarter within 16 and three quarters within 53.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
May 30, 2022
First posted
Jun 10, 2022
StartActual
Sep 1, 2022
Primary completionActual
Jun 6, 2024
CompletionActual
Jun 6, 2024
Last update
Jul 23, 2024
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jul 23, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05413447
Responsible party
Mark Schuuring (Principle investigator, Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jun 10, 2022
Start date
Sep 1, 2022
Primary completion
Jun 6, 2024
Completion
Jun 6, 2024
Last update
Jul 23, 2024

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion