Digital Tool-Assisted Hospitalization Detection in the Tailored Antiplatelet Initiation to Lessen Outcomes due to Decreased Clopidogrel Response After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Study Compared to Traditional Site-Coordinator Ascertainment: Intervention Study
Authors: Avram Robert , Byrne Julia , So Derek , Iturriaga Erin , Lennon Ryan , Murthy Vishakantha , Geller Nancy , Goodman Shaun , Rihal Charanjit , Rosenberg Yves , Bailey Kent , Farkouh Michael , Bell Malcolm , Cagin Charles , Chavez Ivan , El-Hajjar Mohammad , Ginete Wilson , Lerman Amir , Levisay Justin , Marzo Kevin , Nazif Tamim , Tanguay Jean-Francois , Pletcher Mark , Marcus Gregory M , Pereira Naveen L , Olgin Jeffrey 
Published: September 2023

Background
Accurate, timely ascertainment of clinical end points, particularly hospitalizations, is crucial for clinical trials. The Tailored Antiplatelet Initiation to Lessen Outcomes Due to Decreased Clopidogrel Response after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (TAILOR-PCI) Digital Study extended the main TAILOR-PCI trial's follow-up to 2 years, using a smartphone-based research app featuring geofencing-triggered surveys and routine monthly mobile phone surveys to detect cardiovascular (CV) hospitalizations. This pilot study compared these digital tools to conventional site-coordinator ascertainment of CV hospitalizations.

Objective
The objectives were to evaluate geofencing-triggered notifications and routine monthly mobile phone surveys' performance in detecting CV hospitalizations compared to telephone visits and health record reviews by study coordinators at each site.

Methods
US and Canadian participants from the TAILOR-PCI Digital Follow-Up Study were invited to download the Eureka Research Platform mobile app, opting in for location tracking using geofencing, triggering a smartphone-based survey if near a hospital for ≥4 hours. Participants were sent monthly notifications for CV hospitalization surveys.

Results
From 85 participants who consented to the Digital Study, downloaded the mobile app, and had not previously completed their final follow-up visit, 73 (85.8%) initially opted in and consented to geofencing. There were 9 CV hospitalizations ascertained by study coordinators among 5 patients, whereas 8 out of 9 (88.9%) were detected by routine monthly hospitalization surveys. One CV hospitalization went undetected by the survey as it occurred within two weeks of the previous event, and the survey only allowed reporting of a single hospitalization. Among these, 3 were also detected by the geofencing algorithm, but 6 out of 9 (66.7%) were missed by geofencing: 1 occurred in a participant who never consented to geofencing, while 5 hospitalizations occurred among participants who had subsequently turned off geofencing prior to their hospitalization. Geofencing-detected hospitalizations were ascertained within a median of 2 (IQR 1-3) days, monthly surveys within 11 (IQR 6.5-25) days, and site coordinator methods within 38 (IQR 9-105) days. The geofencing algorithm triggered 245 notifications among 39 participants, with 128 (52.2%) from true hospital presence and 117 (47.8%) from nonhospital health care facility visits. Additional geofencing iterative improvements to reduce hospital misidentification were made to the algorithm at months 7 and 12, elevating the rate of true alerts from 35.4% (55 true alerts/155 total alerts before month 7) to 78.7% (59 true alerts/75 total alerts in months 7-12) and ultimately to 93.3% (14 true alerts/5 total alerts in months 13-21), respectively.

Conclusions
The monthly digital survey detected most CV hospitalizations, while the geofencing survey enabled earlier detection but did not offer incremental value beyond traditional tools. Digital tools could potentially reduce the burden on study coordinators in ascertaining CV hospitalizations. The advantages of timely reporting via geofencing should be weighed against the issue of false notifications, which can be mitigated through algorithmic refinements.