Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Pharmakoepidemiologische Forschung mit Routinedaten des Gesundheitswesens

Pharmacoepidemiological research with large health databases

  • Leitthema: Nutzung von Sekundärdaten
  • Published:
Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

In den letzten Jahren zeigt sich eine Zunahme an pharmakoepidemiologischen Studien, die auf Sekundärdaten in Form großer Gesundheitsdatenbanken zurückgreifen. Administrative Datenbanken nutzen Daten, die für die Abrechnung medizinischer Leistungen an den Leistungsträger übermittelt wurden. Arztbasierte Datenbanken verwenden stattdessen elektronisch gespeicherte Behandlungsdaten aus Arztpraxen. In beiden Fällen erfolgt die Erfassung von Verschreibungen und Krankheitsereignissen prospektiv. Je nach Datenquelle können in diesen Datenbanken Informationen zu demographischen Merkmalen, Lebensstilvariablen, ambulanten Arztkontakten, Arzneimittelverordnungen, ambulanten und stationären Diagnosen, ambulanten Leistungen, Laborwerten, Krankenhausaufenthalten und Tod enthalten sein. Damit sind sie eine wertvolle Datenquelle für die pharmakoepidemiologische Forschung, werden aber auch zunehmend für die Untersuchung der Epidemiologie von Erkrankungen eingesetzt. Für die meisten neu zugelassenen Arzneimittel in der Europäischen Union wurde in den letzten Jahren eine aktive Surveillance der Arzneimittelanwendung bzw. der Arzneimittelsicherheit im Rahmen eines Risikomanagementplanes gefordert. Dies bedingt einen erheblichen Bedarf an zuverlässigen und validen Datenquellen. Große Gesundheitsdatenbanken können hier einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Untersuchung der Arzneimittelanwendung nach Markteinführung, zur Identifizierung bislang unerkannter Arzneimittelrisiken und zur raschen Überprüfung von Risikosignalen aus dem Spontanmeldesystem leisten.

Abstract

Over the years there has been an increase in the number of pharmacoepidemiological studies using secondary data from large health databases. Administrative health databases consist of data recorded within the health care system for reasons of billing. Physician-based databases use data derived from electronic medical records. In both types of databases, data are recorded prospectively and may include demographic information, lifestyle information, ambulatory consultations, drug prescriptions, ambulatory and in-hospital diagnoses, ambulatory services, laboratory values, hospitalizations and information on death. Health databases are valuable for research on drug utilization and drug effects, but they are also increasingly used for disease epidemiology studies. In recent years, most new drugs within the European Union have been approved with the requirement of active post-marketing surveillance for investigation of drug utilization or monitoring of drug safety. This implies an increasing need for valid data sources. Large health databases are important instruments for the detection of unknown drug risks and for the investigation of new safety signals derived from spontaneous reporting systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Literatur

  1. Garbe E, Suissa S (2005) Pharmacoepidemiology. In: Ahrens W, Pigeot I (eds) Handbook of Epidemiology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 1226–1266

  2. Dowd R, Recker RR, Heaney RP (2000) Study subjects and ordinary patients. Osteoporos Int 11:533–536

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kelly JP, Rosenberg L, Kaufman DW, Shapiro S(1990) Reliability of personal interview data in ahospital-based case-control study. Am J Epidemiol131:79–90

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tamblyn R, Lavoie G, Petrella L, Monette J (1995)The use of prescription claims databases in pharmacoepidemiological research: the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the prescription claims database in Quebec. J Clin Epidemiol 48:999–1009

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sturmer T, Glynn RJ, Rothman KJ, et al. (2007) Adjustments for unmeasured confounders in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies usingexternal information. Med Care 45:S158–S165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Little RJA, Rubin DB (2002) Statistical analysis with missing Data. 2nd edn. Jon Wiley & Sons, New York

  7. Schneeweiss S, Avorn J (2005) A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologicresearch on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol 58:323–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. PHARMO Institute for Outcomes Research. http://www.pharmo.nl/ (letzter Zugriff 20.4.2008)

  9. UK General Practice Research Database. http://www.gprd.com (letzter Zugriff 20.4.2008)

  10. Garcia Rodriguez LA, Perez GS (1998) Use of the UK General Practice Research Database for pharmacoepidemiology. Br J Clin Pharmacol 45:419–425

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jick H, Jick SS, Derby LE (1991) Validation of information recorded on general practitioner based computerised data resource in the United Kingdom. BMJ 302:766–768

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Jick SS, Kaye JA, Vasilakis-Scaramozza C, et al. (2003) Validity of the general practice research database. Pharmacotherapy 23:686–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lawrenson R, Todd JC, Leydon GM, et al. (2000) Validation of the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in general practice database studies. BrJ Clin Pharmacol 49:591–596

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Soriano JB, Maier WC, Visick G, Pride NB (2001) Validation of general practitioner-diagnosed COPD in the UK General Practice Research Database. EurJ Epidemiol 17:1075–1080

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. IMS and UK’s General Practice Research DatabaseGroup Establish Strategic Alliance to Support Evidence-Based Decisions in Healthcare. www.gprd.com/_docs/IMS%20GPRD%20New%20Release.doc (letzter Zugriff 20.4.2008)

  16. Dietlein G, Schroder-Bernhardi D (2003) Doctors’ prescription behaviour regarding dosage recommendationsfor preparations of kava extracts. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 12:417–421

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Perez E, Schroder-Bernhardi D, Dietlein G (2002) Treatment behavior of doctors regarding Helicobacterpylori infections. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 40:126–129

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Schroder-Bernhardi D, Dietlein G (2002) Lipid lowering therapy: do hospitals influence the prescribing behavior of general practitioners? Int JClin Pharmacol Ther 40:317–321

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Himmel W, Hummers-Pradier E, Kochen MM (2006) Medizinische Versorgung in der hausärztlichen Praxis. Ein neuer Forschungsansatz. Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitsschutz49:151–159

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hummers-Pradier E (2008) Nutzen hausärztliche Routinedaten zur Abbildung von Versorgungsqualität– Stand in Deutschland (RKI Symposium vom12. Dezember 2006). In: Fuchs C, Kurth BM, ScribaPC (Hrsg) Report Versorgungsforschung. DeutscherÄrzte-Verlag GmbH, Köln, S 171–179

  21. Medizinische Versorgung in der Praxis. http://www.medvip.uni-goettingen.de/ (letzter Zugriff20.4.2008)

  22. Jick H, Jick SS, Gurewich V, et al. (1995) Risk ofidiopathic cardiovascular death and nonfatalvenous thromboembolism in women using oral contraceptives with differing progestagen components. Lancet 346:1589–1593

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Andersohn F, Suissa S, Garbe E (2006) Use of firstandsecond-generation cyclooxygenase-2-selectivenonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and riskof acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 113:1950–1957

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Andersohn F, Schade R, Suissa S, Garbe E (2006) Cyclooxygenase-2 selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatorydrugs and the risk of ischemicstroke: a nested case-control study. Stroke 37:1725–1730

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ray WA, Stein CM, Daugherty JR et al. (2002) COX-2selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of serious coronary heart disease. Lancet 360:1071–1073

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Graham DJ, Staffa JA, Shatin D, et al. (2004) Incidenceof hospitalized rhabdomyolysis in patientstreated with lipid-lowering drugs. JAMA 292:2585–2590

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Jick H, Vasilakis C, Weinrauch LA, et al. (1998)A population-based study of appetite-suppressantdrugs and the risk of cardiac-valve regurgitation. N Engl J Med 339:719–724

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Schade R, Andersohn F, Suissa S, et al. (2007) Dopamine agonists and the risk of cardiac-valveregurgitation. N Engl J Med 356:29–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Garcia Rodriguez LA, Huerta-Alvarez C (2000) Reduced incidence of colorectal adenoma amonglong-term users of nonsteroidal antiinflammatorydrugs: a pooled analysis of published studies and anew population-based study. Epidemiology 11:376–381

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Schlienger RG, Kraenzlin ME, Jick SS, Meier CR(2004) Use of beta-blockers and risk of fractures. JAMA 292:1326–1332

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Meier CR, Schlienger RG, Kraenzlin ME, et al. (2000) HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and the risk offractures. JAMA 283:3205–3210

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Khurana V, Caldito G, Ankem M (2008) Statinsmight reduce risk of renal cell carcinoma inhumans: case-control study of 500,000 veterans. Urology 71:118–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jick SS, Bradbury BD (2004) Statins and newly diagnosed diabetes. Br J Clin Pharmacol 58:303–309

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. De Bruin ML, Panneman MJ, Leufkens HG, et al.(2002) Use of cisapride with contraindicated drugs in The Netherlands. Ann Pharmacother 36:338–343

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Carlson AM, Morris LS (1996) Coprescription ofterfenadine and erythromycin or ketaconazole: an assessment of potential harm. J Am PharmAssoc (Wash) NS36:263–269

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Huot L, Couris CM, Tainturier V, et al. (2008) Trendsin HRT and anti-osteoporosis medication prescribingin a European population after the WHI study.Osteoporos Int (in press)

  37. Sukel MP, van der Linden MW, Chen C, et al. (2008) Large-scale stopping and switching treatment with COX-2 inhibitors after the rofecoxib withdrawal. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 17:9–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. GPRD Bibliography, Update March 2008. http://www.gprd.com/info/bibliography.asp (letzterZugriff 20.4.2008)

  39. Spitzer WO, Suissa S, Ernst P, et al. (1992) The use ofbeta-agonists and the risk of death and near deathfrom asthma. N Engl J Med 326:501–506

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Nink K, Schröder H, Schubert I (2005) Arzneimittel. In: Swart E, Ihle P (Hrsg) Routinedaten im Gesundheitswesen. Handbuch Sekundärdatenanalyse: Grundlagen, Methoden, Perspektiven. Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern, S 99–122

  41. Lewis MA, Meyer R, Döpfmer S (1996) Konzept,methodischer Überblick und Ergebnisse der Definitionsphase.In: Lewis MA, Meyer R, Döpfmer S,Guggenmoos-Holzmann I (Hrsg) Rapid ResponseUnit. Möglichkeiten und Bedarf der Pharmakoepidemiologiein Deutschland. Berlin, TagungsberichtS 83–107

  42. The European Medicines Agency The EuropeanMedicines Agency Road Map to 2010: Preparingthe Ground for the Future (EMEA/H/34163/03/Final). http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/general/direct/directory/3416303enF.pdf (letzter Zugriff20.4.2008)

  43. The European Medicines Agency – Committee forMedicinal Products for Human Use Guideline onrisk management systems for medicinal productsfor human use (EMEA/CHMP/96268/2005). http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/euleg/9626805en.pdf (letzter Zugriff 20.4.2008)

  44. Blackburn S (2008) Persönliche Mitteilung im Rahmen des European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) Meetings in London, 18.4.2008

  45. Hasford J, Schubert I, Garbe E, et al. (2004) Memorandumzu Nutzen und Notwendigkeit Pharmakoepidemiologischer Datenbanken in Deutschland. Asgard-Verlag Hippe, St. Augustin

  46. Ahrens W, Hagemeier C, Muhlbauer B, et al. (2007) Hospitalization rates of generic metoprolol compared with the original beta-blocker in an epidemiologicaldatabase study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 16:1298–1307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Pigeot I, Ahrens W (2008) Establishment of a pharmacoepidemiological database in Germany:methodological potential, scientific value andpractical limitations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 17:215–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Suissa S (2008) Immortal time bias in pharmacoepidemiology. Am J Epidemiol 167:492–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Suissa S, Garbe E (2007) Primer: administrativehealth databases in observational studies of drugeffects – advantages and disadvantages. Nat ClinPract Rheumatol 3:725–732

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank Andersohn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andersohn, F., Garbe, E. Pharmakoepidemiologische Forschung mit Routinedaten des Gesundheitswesens. Bundesgesundheitsbl. 51, 1135–1144 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-008-0648-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-008-0648-9

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation