Yu Yang1, Xiaofeng Zhou2, Shuangqing Gao3, Hongbo Lin4, Yanming Xie5, Yuji Feng6,7, Kui Huang2, Siyan Zhan8. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Bio-Statistics, School of Public Health, Peking University Health Science Center, No.38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China. 2. Epidemiology, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA. 3. Beijing Brainpower Pharmacy Consulting Co. Ltd, Beijing, China. 4. Center for Disease Control of Yinzhou, Ningbo, China. 5. Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China. 6. Chinese Medical Doctor Association, Beijing, China. 7. Epidemiology and Real-World Data Analytics, Pfizer Investment Co. Ltd., Beijing, China. 8. Department of Epidemiology and Bio-Statistics, School of Public Health, Peking University Health Science Center, No.38 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China. siyan-zhan@bjmu.edu.cn.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Electronic healthcare databases (EHDs) are used increasingly for post-marketing drug safety surveillance and pharmacoepidemiology in Europe and North America. However, few studies have examined the potential of these data sources in China. METHODS: Three major types of EHDs in China (i.e., a regional community-based database, a national claims database, and an electronic medical records [EMR] database) were selected for evaluation. Forty core variables were derived based on the US Mini-Sentinel (MS) Common Data Model (CDM) as well as the data features in China that would be desirable to support drug safety surveillance. An email survey of these core variables and eight general questions as well as follow-up inquiries on additional variables was conducted. These 40 core variables across the three EHDs and all variables in each EHD along with those in the US MS CDM and Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) CDM were compared for availability and labeled based on specific standards. RESULTS: All of the EHDs' custodians confirmed their willingness to share their databases with academic institutions after appropriate approval was obtained. The regional community-based database contained 1.19 million people in 2015 with 85% of core variables. Resampled annually nationwide, the national claims database included 5.4 million people in 2014 with 55% of core variables, and the EMR database included 3 million inpatients from 60 hospitals in 2015 with 80% of core variables. Compared with MS CDM or OMOP CDM, the proportion of variables across the three EHDs available or able to be transformed/derived from the original sources are 24-83% or 45-73%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These EHDs provide potential value to post-marketing drug safety surveillance and pharmacoepidemiology in China. Future research is warranted to assess the quality and completeness of these EHDs or additional data sources in China.
INTRODUCTION: Electronic healthcare databases (EHDs) are used increasingly for post-marketing drug safety surveillance and pharmacoepidemiology in Europe and North America. However, few studies have examined the potential of these data sources in China. METHODS: Three major types of EHDs in China (i.e., a regional community-based database, a national claims database, and an electronic medical records [EMR] database) were selected for evaluation. Forty core variables were derived based on the US Mini-Sentinel (MS) Common Data Model (CDM) as well as the data features in China that would be desirable to support drug safety surveillance. An email survey of these core variables and eight general questions as well as follow-up inquiries on additional variables was conducted. These 40 core variables across the three EHDs and all variables in each EHD along with those in the US MS CDM and Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) CDM were compared for availability and labeled based on specific standards. RESULTS: All of the EHDs' custodians confirmed their willingness to share their databases with academic institutions after appropriate approval was obtained. The regional community-based database contained 1.19 million people in 2015 with 85% of core variables. Resampled annually nationwide, the national claims database included 5.4 million people in 2014 with 55% of core variables, and the EMR database included 3 million inpatients from 60 hospitals in 2015 with 80% of core variables. Compared with MS CDM or OMOP CDM, the proportion of variables across the three EHDs available or able to be transformed/derived from the original sources are 24-83% or 45-73%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These EHDs provide potential value to post-marketing drug safety surveillance and pharmacoepidemiology in China. Future research is warranted to assess the quality and completeness of these EHDs or additional data sources in China.
Authors: Lesley H Curtis; Mark G Weiner; Denise M Boudreau; William O Cooper; Gregory W Daniel; Vinit P Nair; Marsha A Raebel; Nicolas U Beaulieu; Robert Rosofsky; Tiffany S Woodworth; Jeffrey S Brown Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Rachel E Behrman; Joshua S Benner; Jeffrey S Brown; Mark McClellan; Janet Woodcock; Richard Platt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Yihua Xu; Xiaofeng Zhou; Brandon T Suehs; Abraham G Hartzema; Michael G Kahn; Yola Moride; Brian C Sauer; Qing Liu; Keran Moll; Margaret K Pasquale; Vinit P Nair; Andrew Bate Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Lucía Cea Soriano; Alex Asiimwe; Mieke Van Hemelrijck; Cecilia Bosco; Luis A García Rodríguez Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2020-07-18 Impact factor: 2.796