Combining multiple healthcare databases for postmarketing drug and vaccine safety surveillance: why and how?

A growing number of international initiatives (e.g. EU-ADR, Sentinel, OMOP, PROTECT and VAESCO) are based on the combined use of multiple healthcare databases for the conduct of active surveillance studies in the area of drug and vaccine safety. The motivation behind combining multiple healthcare databases is the earlier detection and validation, and hence earlier management, of potential safety issues. Overall, the combination of multiple healthcare databases increases statistical sample size and heterogeneity of exposure for postmarketing drug and vaccine safety surveillance, despite posing several technical challenges. Healthcare databases generally differ by underlying healthcare systems, type of information collected, drug/vaccine and medical event coding systems and language. Therefore, harmonization of medical data extraction through homogeneous coding algorithms across highly different databases is necessary. Although no standard procedure is currently available to achieve this, several approaches have been developed in recent projects. Another main challenge involves choosing the work models for data management and analyses whilst respecting country-specific regulations in terms of data privacy and anonymization. Dedicated software (e.g. Jerboa) has been produced to deal with privacy issues by sharing only anonymized and aggregated data using a common data model. Finally, storage and safe access to the data from different databases requires the development of a proper remote research environment. The aim of this review is to provide a summary of the potential, disadvantages, methodological issues and possible solutions concerning the conduct of postmarketing multidatabase drug and vaccine safety studies, as demonstrated by several international initiatives.

Is population-oriented IT supported preventive care in general practice feasible? A database study.

BACKGROUND: Introducing a clinical decision support system (CDSS) in general practice that provides broad support based on all available guidelines for preventive care might dramatically increase the workload of a general practitioner. AIM: We evaluated the potential effect on workload of a CDSS that aims to support the whole breadth of preventive guidelines currently used in The Netherlands. METHODS: We analysed the guidelines of the Dutch college of General Practitioners (DCGP) for preventive activities, developed a CDSS based on the guidelines and studied the behaviour of the system on real patient data. RESULTS: 20 of the 87 DCGP guidelines contained data on preventive activities which was incorporated in the system. Out of 485,793 patients, the system indicated that for 138,885 (28.6%) a preventive action was needed. CONCLUSION: A CDSS that aims to support the whole breadth of preventive activities in general practice will have a substantial effect on workload. Further tailoring of the support will be needed.

Postmarketing surveillance based on electronic patient records: the IPCI project.

Researchers claim that data in electronic patient records can be used for a variety of purposes including individual patient care, management, and resource planning for scientific research. Our objective in the project Integrated Primary Care Information (IPCI) was to assess whether the electronic patient records of Dutch general practitioners contain sufficient data to perform studies in the area of postmarketing surveillance studies. We determined the data requirements for postmarketing surveillance studies, implemented additional software in the electronic patient records of the general practitioner, developed an organization to monitor the use of data, and performed validation studies to test the quality of the data. Analysis of the data requirements showed that additional software had to be installed to collect data that is not recorded in routine practice. To avoid having to obtain informed consent from each enrolled patient, we developed IPCI as a semianonymous system: both patients and participating general practitioners are anonymous for the researchers. Under specific circumstances, the researcher can contact indirectly (through a trusted third party) the physician that made the data available. Only the treating general practitioner is able to decode the identity of his patients. A Board of Supervisors predominantly consisting of participating general practitioners monitors the use of data. Validation studies show the data can be used for postmarketing surveillance. With additional software to collect data not normally recorded in routine practice, data from electronic patient record of general practitioners can be used for postmarketing surveillance.