Health-Analytics Data to Evidence Suite (HADES): Open-Source Software for Observational Research.

The Health-Analytics Data to Evidence Suite (HADES) is an open-source software collection developed by Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI). It executes directly against healthcare data such as electronic health records and administrative claims, that have been converted to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model. Using advanced analytics, HADES performs characterization, population-level causal effect estimation, and patient-level prediction, potentially across a federated data network, allowing patient-level data to remain locally while only aggregated statistics are shared. Designed to run across a wide array of technical environments, including different operating systems and database platforms, HADES uses continuous integration with a large set of unit tests to maintain reliability. HADES implements OHDSI best practices, and is used in almost all published OHDSI studies, including some that have directly informed regulatory decisions.

Inferring pregnancy episodes and outcomes within a network of observational databases.

Administrative claims and electronic health records are valuable resources for evaluating pharmaceutical effects during pregnancy. However, direct measures of gestational age are generally not available. Establishing a reliable approach to infer the duration and outcome of a pregnancy could improve pharmacovigilance activities. We developed and applied an algorithm to define pregnancy episodes in four observational databases: three US-based claims databases: Truven MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters (CCAE), Truven MarketScan® Multi-state Medicaid (MDCD), and the Optum ClinFormatics® (Optum) database and one non-US database, the United Kingdom (UK) based Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Pregnancy outcomes were classified as live births, stillbirths, abortions and ectopic pregnancies. Start dates were estimated using a derived hierarchy of available pregnancy markers, including records such as last menstrual period and nuchal ultrasound dates. Validation included clinical adjudication of 700 electronic Optum and CPRD pregnancy episode profiles to assess the operating characteristics of the algorithm, and a comparison of the algorithm's Optum pregnancy start estimates to starts based on dates of assisted conception procedures. Distributions of pregnancy outcome types were similar across all four data sources and pregnancy episode lengths found were as expected for all outcomes, excepting term lengths in episodes that used amenorrhea and urine pregnancy tests for start estimation. Validation survey results found highest agreement between reviewer chosen and algorithm operating characteristics for questions assessing pregnancy status and accuracy of outcome category with 99-100% agreement for Optum and CPRD. Outcome date agreement within seven days in either direction ranged from 95-100%, while start date agreement within seven days in either direction ranged from 90-97%. In Optum validation sensitivity analysis, a total of 73% of algorithm estimated starts for live births were in agreement with fertility procedure estimated starts within two weeks in either direction; ectopic pregnancy 77%, stillbirth 47%, and abortion 36%. An algorithm to infer live birth and ectopic pregnancy episodes and outcomes can be applied to multiple observational databases with acceptable accuracy for further epidemiologic research. Less accuracy was found for start date estimations in stillbirth and abortion outcomes in our sensitivity analysis, which may be expected given the nature of the outcomes.

Feasibility and utility of applications of the common data model to multiple, disparate observational health databases.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utility of applying the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM) across multiple observational databases within an organization and to apply standardized analytics tools for conducting observational research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six deidentified patient-level datasets were transformed to the OMOP CDM. We evaluated the extent of information loss that occurred through the standardization process. We developed a standardized analytic tool to replicate the cohort construction process from a published epidemiology protocol and applied the analysis to all 6 databases to assess time-to-execution and comparability of results. RESULTS: Transformation to the CDM resulted in minimal information loss across all 6 databases. Patients and observations excluded were due to identified data quality issues in the source system, 96% to 99% of condition records and 90% to 99% of drug records were successfully mapped into the CDM using the standard vocabulary. The full cohort replication and descriptive baseline summary was executed for 2 cohorts in 6 databases in less than 1 hour. DISCUSSION: The standardization process improved data quality, increased efficiency, and facilitated cross-database comparisons to support a more systematic approach to observational research. Comparisons across data sources showed consistency in the impact of inclusion criteria, using the protocol and identified differences in patient characteristics and coding practices across databases. CONCLUSION: Standardizing data structure (through a CDM), content (through a standard vocabulary with source code mappings), and analytics can enable an institution to apply a network-based approach to observational research across multiple, disparate observational health databases.