Replication of the OMOP Experiment in Europe: Evaluating Methods for Risk Identification in Electronic Health Record Databases
- 549 Downloads
The Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) has just completed a large scale empirical evaluation of statistical methods and analysis choices for risks identification in longitudinal observational healthcare data. This experiment drew data from four large US health insurance claims databases and one US electronic health record (EHR) database, but it is unclear to what extend the findings of this study apply to other data sources.
To replicate the OMOP experiment in six European EHR databases.
Six databases of the EU-ADR (Exploring and Understanding Adverse Drug Reactions) database network participated in this study: Aarhus (Denmark), ARS (Italy), HealthSearch (Italy), IPCI (the Netherlands), Pedianet (Italy), and Pharmo (the Netherlands). All methods in the OMOP experiment were applied to a collection of 165 positive and 234 negative control drug–outcome pairs across four outcomes: acute liver injury, acute myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC) was computed per database and for a combination of all six databases using meta-analysis for random effects. We provide expected values of estimation error as well, based on negative controls.
Similarly to the US experiment, high predictive accuracy was found (AUC >0.8) for some analyses. Self-controlled designs, such as self-controlled case series, IC temporal pattern discovery and self-controlled cohort achieved higher performance than other methods, both in terms of predictive accuracy and observed bias.
The major findings of the recent OMOP experiment were also observed in the European databases.
KeywordsPropensity Score Acute Liver Injury Relative Risk Estimate Analysis Choice True Effect Size
The authors wish to acknowledge the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) investigators for their help in running the OMOP methods in the EU-ADR environment. The study was funded by The Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, grant STUR11OMOP. Dr. Schuemie received a fellowship from the Office of Medical Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, has become an employee of Janssen Research & Development since completing this research, and is an OMOP investigator. OMOP is funded by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health through generous contributions from the following: Abbott, Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly & Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Research and Development, Lundbeck, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer Inc, Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), Roche, Sanofi-aventis, Schering-Plough Corporation, and Takeda. Mr. Straatman and Dr. Herings are employees of the PHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research, which performs financially supported studies for several pharmaceutical companies. All other authors declare to have no conflicts of interests to declare. Dr. Sturkenboom is an employee of the Erasmus University Medical Center, and coordinates studies that are financially supported by several pharmaceutical companies (Novartis, Pfizer, EliLilly, Boehringer), none related to this study.
This article was published in a supplement sponsored by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH). The supplement was guest edited by Stephen J.W. Evans. It was peer reviewed by Olaf H. Klungel who received a small honorarium to cover out-of-pocket expenses. S.J.W.E has received travel funding from the FNIH to travel to the OMOP symposium and received a fee from FNIH for the review of a protocol for OMOP. O.H.K has received funding for the IMI-PROTECT project.from the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (http://www.imi.europa.eu) under Grant Agreement no 115004, resources of which are composed of financial contribution from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) and EFPIA companies’ in kind contribution.
- 1.Ryan PB, Madigan D, Stang PE, Marc Overhage J, Racoosin JA, Hartzema AG. Empirical assessment of methods for risk identification in healthcare data: results from the experiments of the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership. Stat Med. 2012;31(30):4401–15.Google Scholar
- 3.Ryan PB, Stang PE, Overhage JM, Suchard MA, Hartzema AG, DuMouchel W, et al. A comparison empirical performance of methods for a risk identification system. Drug Saf. 2013 (in this supplement issue). doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0108-9.
- 5.Avillach P, Coloma PM, Gini R, Schuemie M, Mougin F, Dufour JC, et al. Harmonization process for the identification of medical events in eight European healthcare databases: the experience from the EU-ADR project. J Am Med Inform Assoc (JAMIA). 2013;20(1):184–92.Google Scholar
- 7.Madigan D, Schuemie MJ, Ryan PB. Empirical performance of the case-control method: lessons for developing a risk identification and analysis system. Drug Saf. 2013 (in this supplement issue). doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0105-z.
- 8.Ryan PB, Schuemie MJ, Gruber S, Zorych I, Zorych D. Empirical performance of a new user cohort method: lessons for developing a risk identification and analysis system. Drug Saf. 2013 (in this supplement issue). doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0099-6.
- 9.DuMouchel B, Ryan PB, Schuemie MJ, Madigan D. Evaluation of disproportionality safety signaling applid to health care databases. Drug Saf. 2013 (in this supplement issue). doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0106-y.
- 10.Norén GN, Bergvall T, Ryan PB, Juhlin K, Schuemie MJ, Madigan D. Empirical performance of the calibrated self-controlled cohort analysis within temporal pattern discovery: lessons for developing a risk identification and analysis system. Drug Saf. 2013 (in this supplement issue). doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0095-x.
- 11.Schuemie MJ, Madigan D, Ryan PB. Empirical performance of LGPS and LEOPARD: lessons for developing a risk identification and analysis system. Drug Saf. 2013 (in this supplement issue). doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0107-x.
- 12.Ryan PB, Schuemie MJ, Madigan D. Empirical performance of a self-controlled cohort method: lessons for developing a risk identification and analysis system. Drug Saf. 2013 (in this supplement issue). doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0101-3.
- 13.Suchard MA, Zorych I, Simpson SE, Schuemie MJ, Ryan PB, Madigan D. Empirical performance of the self-controlled case series design: lessons for developing a risk identification and analysis system. Drug Saf. 2013 (in this supplement issue). doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0100-4.
- 14.Hartzema AG, Reich CG, Ryan PB, Stang PE, Madigan D, Welebob E, et al. Managing data quality for a drug safety surveillance system. Drug Saf. 2013 (in this supplement issue). doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0098-7.
- 17.Ryan PB, Schuemie MJ. Evaluating performance of risk identification methods through a large-scale simulation of observational data. Drug Saf. 2013 (in this supplement issue). doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0110-2.
- 18.Reich CG, Ryan PB, Schuemie MJ. Alternative outcome definitions and their effect on the performance of methods for observational outcome studies. Drug Saf. 2013 (in this supplement issue). doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0111-1.