Alcohol consumption and its correlation with medical conditions: a UK Biobank study.

Background: Alcohol consumption has been associated with the occurrence of many health conditions. We analyzed UK Biobank data to explore associations of various conditions to type and amount of alcohol consumed. UK Biobank is a large biomedical database providing information from UK participants, including lifestyle questionnaires and diagnosis data. Methods: Using UK Biobank, we examined the relationship between weekly alcohol consumption, alcohol type and the incidence of eight select conditions. We calculated counts of individuals consuming each type diagnosed with these conditions. To assess the effect of alcohol consumption on each condition's prevalence, we used log-logistic regression models to generate dose-response models for each alcohol type. Results: The alcohol consumed included: red wine (228,439 participants), white wine (188811), beer (182648), spirits (129418), and fortified wine (34598). We observed increased condition prevalence with increasing amounts of alcohol. This was especially seen for chronic obstructive lung disease, cirrhosis of liver, hypertension, gastritis, and type 2 diabetes. Beer consumers showed higher prevalence for most conditions while fortified wine had the largest increases in incidence rates. Only white wine showed decreased incidence for acute myocardial infarction. In general, the prevalence of many conditions was higher among alcohol consumers, particularly for hypertension, 33.8%, compared to 28.6% for non-drinkers. Conclusion: Although many conditions were already prevalent among non-drinkers, participants consuming increasing amounts of alcohol had increased incidence rates for many of the studied conditions. This was especially true for consumers of beer and fortified wine, but also true to a lesser extent for consumers of spirits, red and white wine.

Conversion of CPRD AURUM Data into the OMOP Common Data Model.

Introduction: Efforts to standardize clinical data using Common Data Models (CDMS) has grown in recent years. Use of CDMs allows for quicker understanding of data structure and reuse of existing tools. One CDM is the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) CDM. Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) is a data collection program collecting general practitioner data in the UK. Objective: Our objective was to convert a static copy of CPRD AURUM data into the OMOP CDM and run existing tools on the converted data. Methods: Two methods were used to convert each CPRD file into the OMOP CDM. The first was direct mapping used when converting CPRD files that had comparable tables in the OMOP CDM. The original names were changed to the OMOP equivalent and source values converted to standardized OMOP concepts. CPRD files: Patient (to OMOP Person), Staff (to Provider), Drug Issue (to Drug Exposure) and Practice (to Care Site) were directly mapped. The second method was indirect where for the CPRD Observation file the domain of each data row was used to assign data to proper OMOP tables or columns done by converting all source values to standard concepts. Results: The OMOP CDM conversion populated 12 tables and 20,240,453,339 rows, with the largest table being the Measurement table (5,202,579,174 data row). Mapping source values to OMOP standard concepts, we found 60.2% (46,413 of 77,149) of source concepts were also standard concepts. The Drug Exposure table had the fewest source values already in the standard form as only 4.7% (1,433 of 30,194) of the source concepts were standard concepts. On a data retention level, only 2.00% of all data rows were excluded as they did not have a clear fit in the developed CDM and were not able to stand alone without additional information which was not present. Conclusion: CPRD AURUM was successfully converted into the OMOP CDM with minimal data loss. Existing OHDSI tools were used with the converted data to show efficacy of the converted data. The existence of a standardized version of CPRD AURUM data vastly increases its reusability in future research due to increased understanding and tools available.

Learning important common data elements from shared study data: The All of Us program analysis.

There are many initiatives attempting to harmonize data collection across human clinical studies using common data elements (CDEs). The increased use of CDEs in large prior studies can guide researchers planning new studies. For that purpose, we analyzed the All of Us (AoU) program, an ongoing US study intending to enroll one million participants and serve as a platform for numerous observational analyses. AoU adopted the OMOP Common Data Model to standardize both research (Case Report Form [CRF]) and real-world (imported from Electronic Health Records [EHRs]) data. AoU standardized specific data elements and values by including CDEs from terminologies such as LOINC and SNOMED CT. For this study, we defined all elements from established terminologies as CDEs and all custom concepts created in the Participant Provided Information (PPI) terminology as unique data elements (UDEs). We found 1 033 research elements, 4 592 element-value combinations and 932 distinct values. Most elements were UDEs (869, 84.1%), while most CDEs were from LOINC (103 elements, 10.0%) or SNOMED CT (60, 5.8%). Of the LOINC CDEs, 87 (53.1% of 164 CDEs) originated from previous data collection initiatives, such as PhenX (17 CDEs) and PROMIS (15 CDEs). On a CRF level, The Basics (12 of 21 elements, 57.1%) and Lifestyle (10 of 14, 71.4%) were the only CRFs with multiple CDEs. On a value level, 61.7% of distinct values are from an established terminology. AoU demonstrates the use of the OMOP model for integrating research and routine healthcare data (64 elements in both contexts), which allows for monitoring lifestyle and health changes outside the research setting. The increased inclusion of CDEs in large studies (like AoU) is important in facilitating the use of existing tools and improving the ease of understanding and analyzing the data collected, which is more challenging when using study specific formats.

regCOVID: Tracking publications of registered COVID-19 studies.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many clinical studies have been initiated leading to the need for efficient ways to track and analyze study results. We expanded our previous project that tracked registered COVID-19 clinical studies to also track result articles generated from these studies. Our objective was to develop a data science approach to identify and analyze all publications linked to COVID-19 clinical studies and generate a prioritized list of publications for efficient understanding of the state of COVID-19 clinical research. METHODS: We conducted searches of ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed to identify articles linked to COVID-19 studies, and developed criteria based on the trial phase, intervention, location, and record recency to develop a prioritized list of result publications. RESULTS: The performed searchers resulted in 1 022 articles linked to 565 interventional trials (17.8% of all 3 167 COVID-19 interventional trials as of 31 January 2022). 609 publications were identified via abstract-link in PubMed and 413 via registry-link in ClinicalTrials.gov, with 27 articles linked from both sources. Of the 565 trials publishing at least one article, 197 (34.9%) had multiple linked publications. An attention score was assigned to each publication to develop a prioritized list of all publications linked to COVID-19 trials and 83 publications were identified that are result articles from late phase (Phase 3) trials with at least one US site and multiple study record updates. For COVID-19 vaccine trials, 108 linked result articles for 64 trials (14.7% of 436 total COVID-19 vaccine trials) were found. CONCLUSIONS: Our method allows for the efficient identification of important COVID-19 articles that report results of registered clinical trials and are connected via a structured article-trial link. Our data science methodology also allows for consistent and as needed data updates and is generalizable to other conditions of interest.

CONSIDER Statement: Consolidated Recommendations for Sharing Individual Participant Data from Human Clinical Studies.

Many research sponsors require sharing of data from human clinical trials. We created the CONSIDER statement, a set of recommendations to improve data sharing practices and increase the availability and re-usability of individual participant data from clinical trials. We developed the recommendations by reviewing shared individual participant data and study artifacts from a set of completed studies, as well as study data deposited on ClinicalTrials.gov and on several data sharing platforms. The CONSIDER statement is comprised of seven sections including: format, data sharing, study design, case report forms, data dictionary, data de-identification and choice of data sharing platform. We developed several different forms of CONSIDER which includes a brief form (the checklist), a full form (detailed descriptions and examples), and a scoring methodology. The checklist can be used to evaluate adherence to various progressive data sharing recommendations. We are currently in Phase 2 of collecting feedback on the CONSIDER statement.

Data Characterization of Medicaid: Legacy and New Data Formats in the CMS Virtual Research Data Center.

Medicaid is a significant health insurance plan providing healthcare coverage to up to a third of the population of the United Sates. We describe two different formats of Medicaid data within Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Virtual Research Data Center. We analyze record length, age and enrollment justification among patients for both data formats. As of December 2016, the total size of Medicaid population available from CMS is 92,953,389; 45% of patients are aged 0 to 18, 26.6% are aged 19-35 and 23.2% are aged 36-64. In terms of Medicaid eligibility, 35.6% qualify due to (child) age and 26.8% qualify due to income. We also compare the volume of Medicaid to Medicare for year 2016. We conclude that Medicaid data includes patients with significant record lengths and relatively well documented enrollment justification, which are high value assets for data reuse researchers that are willing to balance known data limitations with careful analysis design and interpretation.

Linking Provider Specialty and Outpatient Diagnoses in Medicare Claims Data: Data Quality Implications.

BACKGROUND: With increasing use of real world data in observational health care research, data quality assessment of these data is equally gaining in importance. Electronic health record (EHR) or claims datasets can differ significantly in the spectrum of care covered by the data. OBJECTIVE: In our study, we link provider specialty with diagnoses (encoded in International Classification of Diseases) with a motivation to characterize data completeness. METHODS: We develop a set of measures that determine diagnostic span of a specialty (how many distinct diagnosis codes are generated by a specialty) and specialty span of a diagnosis (how many specialties diagnose a given condition). We also analyze ranked lists for both measures. As use case, we apply these measures to outpatient Medicare claims data from 2016 (3.5 billion diagnosis-specialty pairs). We analyze 82 distinct specialties present in Medicare claims (using Medicare list of specialties derived from level III Healthcare Provider Taxonomy Codes). RESULTS: A typical specialty diagnoses on average 4,046 distinct diagnosis codes. It can range from 33 codes for medical toxicology to 25,475 codes for internal medicine. Specialties with large visit volume tend to have large diagnostic span. Median specialty span of a diagnosis code is 8 specialties with a range from 1 to 82 specialties. In total, 13.5% of all observed diagnoses are generated exclusively by a single specialty. Quantitative cumulative rankings reveal that some diagnosis codes can be dominated by few specialties. Using such diagnoses in cohort or outcome definitions may thus be vulnerable to incomplete specialty coverage of a given dataset. CONCLUSION: We propose specialty fingerprinting as a method to assess data completeness component of data quality. Datasets covering a full spectrum of care can be used to generate reference benchmark data that can quantify relative importance of a specialty in constructing diagnostic history elements of computable phenotype definitions.

The changing patterns of comorbidities associated with human immunodeficiency virus infection, a longitudinal retrospective cohort study of Medicare patients.

ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper is to determine the temporal trend of the association of 66 comorbidities with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection status among Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 through 2016.We harvested patient level encounter claims from a 17-year long 100% sample of Medicare records. We used the chronic conditions warehouse comorbidity flags to determine HIV infection status and presence of comorbidities. We prepared 1 data set per year for analysis. Our 17 study data sets are retrospective annualized patient level case histories where the comorbidity status reflects if the patient has ever met the comorbidity case definition from the start of the study to the analysis year.We implemented one logistic binary regression model per study year to discover the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of a comorbidity belonging to our binary classes of HIV+ or HIV- study populations. We report MLE and odds ratios by comorbidity and year.Of the 66 assessed comorbidities, 35 remained associated with HIV- across all model years, 19 remained associated with HIV+ across all model years. Three comorbidities changed association from HIV+ to HIV- and 9 comorbidities changed association from HIV- to HIV+.The prevalence of comorbidities associated with HIV infection changed over time due to clinical, social, and epidemiological reasons. Comorbidity surveillance can provide important insights into the understanding and management of HIV infection and its consequences.

Computerized monitoring of COVID-19 trials, studies and registries in ClinicalTrials.gov registry.

Clinical trial registries can provide important information about relevant studies for a given condition to other researchers and the public. We developed a computerized informatics based approach to provide an overview and analysis of COVID-19 studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov registry. Using the perspective of analyzing active or completed COVID-19 studies, we identified 401 interventional clinical trials, 287 observational studies and 64 registries. We analyzed features of each study type separately such as location, design, interventions and update history. Our results show that the United States had the most COVID-19 interventional trials, France had the most COVID-19 observational studies and France and the United States tied for the most COVID-19 registries on ClinicalTrials.gov. The majority of studies in all three study types had a single study site. For update history "Study Status" is the most updated information and we found that studies located in Canada (2.70 updates per study) and the United States (1.76 updates per study) update their studies more often than studies in any other country. Using normalization and mapping techniques, we identified Hydroxychloroquine (92 studies) as the most common drug intervention, while convalescent plasma (20 studies) is the most common biological intervention. The primary purpose of most interventional trials is for treatment with 298 studies (74.3%). For COVID-19 registries we found the most common proposed follow-up time is 1 year (15 studies). Of specific importance and interest is COVID-19 vaccine trials, of which 12 were identified. Our informatics based approach allows for constant monitoring and updating as well as multiple applications to other conditions and interests.

Analysis of data dictionary formats of HIV clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to define research Common Data Elements try to harmonize data collection across clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to analyze the quality and usability of data dictionaries of HIV studies. METHODS: For the clinical domain of HIV, we searched data sharing platforms and acquired a set of 18 HIV related studies from which we analyzed 26 328 data elements. We identified existing standards for creating a data dictionary and reviewed their use. To facilitate aggregation across studies, we defined three types of data dictionary (data element, forms, and permissible values) and created a simple information model for each type. RESULTS: An average study had 427 data elements (ranging from 46 elements to 9 945 elements). In terms of data type, 48.6% of data elements were string, 47.8% were numeric, 3.0% were date and 0.6% were date-time. No study in our sample explicitly declared a data element as a categorical variable and rather considered them either strings or numeric. Only for 61% of studies were we able to obtain permissible values. The majority of studies used CSV files to share a data dictionary while 22% of the studies used a non-computable, PDF format. All studies grouped their data elements. The average number of groups or forms per study was 24 (ranging between 2 and 124 groups/forms). An accurate and well formatted data dictionary facilitates error-free secondary analysis and can help with data de-identification. CONCLUSION: We saw features of data dictionaries that made them difficult to use and understand. This included multiple data dictionary files or non-machine-readable documents, data elements included in data but not in the dictionary or missing data types or descriptions. Building on experience with aggregating data elements across a large set of studies, we created a set of recommendations (called CONSIDER statement) that can guide optimal data sharing of future studies.

Identification of Common Data Elements from Pivotal FDA Trials.

It is difficult to arrive at an efficient and widely acceptable set of common data elements (CDEs). Trial outcomes, as defined in a clinical trial registry, offer a large set of elements to analyze. However, all clinical trial outcomes is an overwhelming amount of information. One way to reduce this amount of data to a usable volume is to only use a subset of trials. Our method uses a subset of trials by considering trials that support drug approval (pivotal trials) by Food and Drug Administration. We identified a set of pivotal trials from FDA drug approval documents and used primary outcomes data for these trials to identify a set of important CDEs. We identified 76 CDEs out of a set of 172 data elements from 192 pivotal trials for 100 drugs. This set of CDEs, grouped by medical condition, can be considered as containing the most significant data elements.

Evaluation of Research Accessibility and Data Elements of HIV Registries.

BACKGROUND: Patient registries represent a long-term data collection system that is a platform for performing multiple research studies to generate real-world evidence. Many of these registries use common data elements (CDEs) and link data from Electronic Health Records. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated HIV registry features that contribute to the registry's usability for retrospective analysis of existing registry data or new prospective interventional studies. METHODS: We searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG) to generate a list of HIV registries. We used the framework developed by the European Medical Agency (EMA) to evaluate the registries by determining the presence of key research features. These features included information about the registry, request and collaboration processes, and available data. We acquired data dictionaries and identified CDEs. RESULTS: We found 13 HIV registries that met our criteria, 11 through PubMed and 2 through CTG. The prevalence of the evaluated features ranged from all 13 (100%) having published key registry information to 0 having a research contract template. We analyzed 6 data dictionaries and identified 14 CDEs that were present in at least 4 of 6 (66.7%) registry data dictionaries. CONCLUSION: The importance of registries as platforms for research data is growing and the presence of certain features, including data dictionaries, contributes to the reuse and secondary research capabilities of a registry. We found some features such as collaboration policies were in the majority of registries while others such as, ethical support, were in a few and are more for future development.

Sharing of Individual Participant Data from Clinical Trials: General Comparison and HIV Use Case.

Sharing of individual participant data is encouraged by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. We analyzed clinical trial registry data from ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG) and determined the proportion of trials sharing de-identified Individual Participant Data (IPD). We looked at 3,138 medical conditions (as Medical Subject Heading terms). Overall, 10.8% of trials with first registration date after December 1, 2015 answered 'Yes' to plan to share de-identified IPD data. This sharing rate ranges between 0% (biliary tract neoplasms) to 72.2% (meningitis, meningococcal) when analyzed by disease that is focus of a study. Via a predictive model, we found that studies that deposited basic summary results data to CTG results registry, large studies and phase 3 interventional studies are most likely to declare intent to share IPD data. As part of an HIV common data element analysis project, we further compared a body of HIV trials (24% sharing rate) to other diseases.