TY - JOUR
T1 - Different Strategies to Execute Multi-Database Studies for Medicines Surveillance in Real-World Setting
T2 - A Reflection on the European Model
AU - Gini, Rona
AU - Sturkenboom, Miriam C J
AU - Sultana, Janet
AU - Cave, Alison
AU - Landi, Annalisa
AU - Pacurariu, Alexandra
AU - Roberto, Giuseppe
AU - Schink, Tania
AU - Candore, Gianmario
AU - Slattery, Jim
AU - Trifirò, Gianluca
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded by the authors? institutions. The authors thank Olaf Klungel and the Working Group Health Data of TEDDY, the European Network of Excellence for Paediatric Clinical Research, for useful comments. The manuscript has been reviewed and endorsed by the ENCePP Steering Group.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.
PY - 2020/8/1
Y1 - 2020/8/1
N2 - Although postmarketing studies conducted in population-based databases often contain information on patients in the order of millions, they can still be underpowered if outcomes or exposure of interest is rare, or the interest is in subgroup effects. Combining several databases might provide the statistical power needed. A multi-database study (MDS) uses at least two healthcare databases, which are not linked with each other at an individual person level, with analyses carried out in parallel across each database applying a common study protocol. Although many MDSs have been performed in Europe in the past 10 years, there is a lack of clarity on the peculiarities and implications of the existing strategies to conduct them. In this review, we identify four strategies to execute MDSs, classified according to specific choices in the execution: (A) local analyses, where data are extracted and analyzed locally, with programs developed by each site; (B) sharing of raw data, where raw data are locally extracted and transferred without analysis to a central partner, where all the data are pooled and analyzed; (C) use of a common data model with study-specific data, where study-specific data are locally extracted, loaded into a common data model, and processed locally with centrally developed programs; and (D) use of general common data model, where all local data are extracted and loaded into a common data model, prior to and independent of any study protocol, and protocols are incorporated in centrally developed programs that run locally. We illustrate differences between strategies and analyze potential implications.
AB - Although postmarketing studies conducted in population-based databases often contain information on patients in the order of millions, they can still be underpowered if outcomes or exposure of interest is rare, or the interest is in subgroup effects. Combining several databases might provide the statistical power needed. A multi-database study (MDS) uses at least two healthcare databases, which are not linked with each other at an individual person level, with analyses carried out in parallel across each database applying a common study protocol. Although many MDSs have been performed in Europe in the past 10 years, there is a lack of clarity on the peculiarities and implications of the existing strategies to conduct them. In this review, we identify four strategies to execute MDSs, classified according to specific choices in the execution: (A) local analyses, where data are extracted and analyzed locally, with programs developed by each site; (B) sharing of raw data, where raw data are locally extracted and transferred without analysis to a central partner, where all the data are pooled and analyzed; (C) use of a common data model with study-specific data, where study-specific data are locally extracted, loaded into a common data model, and processed locally with centrally developed programs; and (D) use of general common data model, where all local data are extracted and loaded into a common data model, prior to and independent of any study protocol, and protocols are incorporated in centrally developed programs that run locally. We illustrate differences between strategies and analyze potential implications.
KW - Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems
KW - Data Accuracy
KW - Data Collection
KW - Data Management
KW - Data Mining
KW - Databases, Factual
KW - Europe
KW - Humans
KW - Patient Safety
KW - Pharmacovigilance
KW - Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs
KW - Research Design
KW - Risk Assessment
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85085112596&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/cpt.1833
DO - 10.1002/cpt.1833
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32243569
SN - 0009-9236
VL - 108
SP - 228
EP - 235
JO - Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
JF - Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
IS - 2
ER -