OBJECTIVE: Active drug safety surveillance may be enhanced by analysis of multiple observational healthcare databases, including administrative claims and electronic health records. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate a common data model (CDM) enabling rapid, comparable, systematic analyses across disparate observational data sources to identify and evaluate the effects of medicines. DESIGN: The CDM uses a person-centric design, with attributes for demographics, drug exposures, and condition occurrence. Drug eras, constructed to represent periods of persistent drug use, are derived from available elements from pharmacy dispensings, prescriptions written, and other medication history. Condition eras aggregate diagnoses that occur within a single episode of care. Drugs and conditions from source data are mapped to biomedical ontologies to standardize terminologies and enable analyses of higher-order effects. MEASUREMENTS: The CDM was applied to two source types: an administrative claims and an electronic medical record database. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate transformation rules. Two case studies demonstrate the ability of the CDM to enable standard analyses across disparate sources: analyses of persons exposed to rofecoxib and persons with an acute myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Over 43 million persons, with nearly 1 billion drug exposures and 3.7 billion condition occurrences from both databases were successfully transformed into the CDM. An analysis routine applied to transformed data from each database produced consistent, comparable results. CONCLUSION: A CDM can normalize the structure and content of disparate observational data, enabling standardized analyses that are meaningfully comparable when assessing the effects of medicines.
OBJECTIVE: Active drug safety surveillance may be enhanced by analysis of multiple observational healthcare databases, including administrative claims and electronic health records. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate a common data model (CDM) enabling rapid, comparable, systematic analyses across disparate observational data sources to identify and evaluate the effects of medicines. DESIGN: The CDM uses a person-centric design, with attributes for demographics, drug exposures, and condition occurrence. Drug eras, constructed to represent periods of persistent drug use, are derived from available elements from pharmacy dispensings, prescriptions written, and other medication history. Condition eras aggregate diagnoses that occur within a single episode of care. Drugs and conditions from source data are mapped to biomedical ontologies to standardize terminologies and enable analyses of higher-order effects. MEASUREMENTS: The CDM was applied to two source types: an administrative claims and an electronic medical record database. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate transformation rules. Two case studies demonstrate the ability of the CDM to enable standard analyses across disparate sources: analyses of persons exposed to rofecoxib and persons with an acute myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Over 43 million persons, with nearly 1 billion drug exposures and 3.7 billion condition occurrences from both databases were successfully transformed into the CDM. An analysis routine applied to transformed data from each database produced consistent, comparable results. CONCLUSION: A CDM can normalize the structure and content of disparate observational data, enabling standardized analyses that are meaningfully comparable when assessing the effects of medicines.
Authors: Priscilla Velentgas; William West; Carolyn C Cannuscio; Douglas J Watson; Alexander M Walker Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Jeffrey S Brown; Martin Kulldorff; K Arnold Chan; Robert L Davis; David Graham; Parker T Pettus; Susan E Andrade; Marsha A Raebel; Lisa Herrinton; Douglas Roblin; Denise Boudreau; David Smith; Jerry H Gurwitz; Margaret J Gunter; Richard Platt Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Jeffrey S Brown; Martin Kulldorff; Kenneth R Petronis; Robert Reynolds; K Arnold Chan; Robert L Davis; David Graham; Susan E Andrade; Marsha A Raebel; Lisa Herrinton; Douglas Roblin; Denise Boudreau; David Smith; Jerry H Gurwitz; Margaret J Gunter; Richard Platt Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Peter Jüni; Linda Nartey; Stephan Reichenbach; Rebekka Sterchi; Paul A Dieppe; Matthias Egger Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Dec 4-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Félix M Arellano; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Charles E Wentworth; Susan A Oliveria; Elena Rivero; Anila Verma; Kenneth J Rothman Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: J Marc Overhage; Patrick B Ryan; Christian G Reich; Abraham G Hartzema; Paul E Stang Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-10-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Peter M Wahl; Joshua J Gagne; Thomas E Wasser; Debra F Eisenberg; J Keith Rodgers; Gregory W Daniel; Marcus Wilson; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Jeremy A Rassen; Amanda R Patrick; Jerry Avorn; Rhonda L Bohn Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Thomas A Oniki; Ning Zhuo; Calvin E Beebe; Hongfang Liu; Joseph F Coyle; Craig G Parker; Harold R Solbrig; Kyle Marchant; Vinod C Kaggal; Christopher G Chute; Stanley M Huff Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-11-13 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Abraham G Hartzema; Christian G Reich; Patrick B Ryan; Paul E Stang; David Madigan; Emily Welebob; J Marc Overhage Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Suehyun Lee; Jongsoo Han; Rae Woong Park; Grace Juyun Kim; John Hoon Rim; Jooyoung Cho; Kye Hwa Lee; Jisan Lee; Sujeong Kim; Ju Han Kim Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Xing Song; Lemuel R Waitman; Yong Hu; Alan S L Yu; David C Robbins; Mei Liu Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497