» Articles » PMID: 32243569

Different Strategies to Execute Multi-Database Studies for Medicines Surveillance in Real-World Setting: A Reflection on the European Model

Overview
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2020 Apr 4
PMID 32243569
Citations 22
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Real-World Evidence BRIDGE: A Tool to Connect Protocol With Code Programming.

Royo A, Elbers Jhj R, Weibel D, Hoxhaj V, Kurkcuoglu Z, Sturkenboom M Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2024; 33(12):e70062.

PMID: 39603653 PMC: 11602246. DOI: 10.1002/pds.70062.


Antihypertensive therapy during pregnancy: the prescription pattern in Italy.

Locatelli A, Bellante N, Donatiello G, Fortinguerra F, Belleudi V, Poggi F Front Pharmacol. 2024; 15:1370797.

PMID: 39281270 PMC: 11393683. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1370797.


Kidney outcomes with SGLT2is for type 2 diabetes patients: does background treatment with metformin or RASis matter?.

Chong K, Chang Y, Lin M, Hsu C, Wang C, Wang C Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024; 15:1329945.

PMID: 38994012 PMC: 11236716. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1329945.


Adaptation of risk prediction equations for cardiovascular outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes in real-world settings: a cross-institutional study using common data model approach.

Yang C, Chong K, Wang C, Ou H, Kuo S Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2024; 23(1):244.

PMID: 38987773 PMC: 11238483. DOI: 10.1186/s12933-024-02320-0.


Cross-Regional Data Initiative for the Assessment and Development of Treatment for Neurological and Mental Disorders.

Tsai D, Bell J, Abtahi S, Baak B, Bazelier M, Brauer R Clin Epidemiol. 2023; 15:1241-1252.

PMID: 38146486 PMC: 10749544. DOI: 10.2147/CLEP.S426485.


References
1.
Coloma P, de Ridder M, Bezemer I, Herings R, Gini R, Pecchioli S . Risk of cardiac valvulopathy with use of bisphosphonates: a population-based, multi-country case-control study. Osteoporos Int. 2015; 27(5):1857-67. PMC: 4839043. DOI: 10.1007/s00198-015-3441-2. View

2.
Kilpelainen K, Parikka S, Koponen P, Koskinen S, Rotko T, Koskela T . Finnish experiences of health monitoring: local, regional, and national data sources for policy evaluation. Glob Health Action. 2016; 9:28824. PMC: 4773820. DOI: 10.3402/gha.v9.28824. View

3.
Jarow J, LaVange L, Woodcock J . Multidimensional Evidence Generation and FDA Regulatory Decision Making: Defining and Using "Real-World" Data. JAMA. 2017; 318(8):703-704. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.9991. View

4.
Pitts P, Le Louet H, Moride Y, Conti R . 21st century pharmacovigilance: efforts, roles, and responsibilities. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(11):e486-e492. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30312-6. View

5.
Bezin J, Duong M, Lassalle R, Droz C, Pariente A, Blin P . The national healthcare system claims databases in France, SNIIRAM and EGB: Powerful tools for pharmacoepidemiology. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017; 26(8):954-962. DOI: 10.1002/pds.4233. View