1 / 77

Methods to analyze real world databases and registries

Methods to analyze real world databases and registries. Hilal Maradit Kremers, MD MSc Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Clinical Research Methodology Course NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases December 11, 2008. Disclosure. Research funding from National Institutes of Health (RA) Amgen (psoriasis)

emily
Télécharger la présentation

Methods to analyze real world databases and registries

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Methods toanalyze real worlddatabases and registries Hilal Maradit Kremers, MD MSc Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN Clinical Research Methodology Course NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases December 11, 2008

  2. Disclosure Research funding from • National Institutes of Health (RA) • Amgen (psoriasis) • Pfizer (pulmonary arterial hypertension)

  3. Outline • Terminology • Clinical trials versus observational studies and registries • Types of observational studies in rheumatic diseases • Descriptive epidemiology (incidence, prevalence) • Disease definitions (i.e. classification criteria) • Examining outcomes (including effectiveness of therapy) and risk factors (environmental, genetic) • Tips when interpreting results

  4. Terminology “Real-world databases” & registries Observational studies =

  5. Terminology of related observational research disciplines Health Services Research Epidemiology Economics Clinical Epidemiology Health Economics Outcomes research Pharmaco- epidemiology

  6. Terminology: Clinical medicine versus epidemiology CLINICAL MEDICINE • Natural history of the disease • Signs and symptoms • Diagnosis (how and when) • Current clinical practice • Clinical literature • Drug-induced illnesses EPIDEMIOLOGY • Distribution and determinants of diseases in populations • Study design • Data collection • Measurement • Analyses • Interpretation • Critical review

  7. Clinical trials versus observational studies and registries

  8. Clinical trials versus observational studies and registries CLINICAL TRIAL Exposure - Disease Exposure + Exposure - COHORT / REGISTRY Disease Exposure + Disease - CASE- CONTROL Exposure Disease +

  9. Why do we need registries • Limitations of pre-marketing trials • Unresolved issues from pre-marketing studies • New signals or inconsistent signals from post-marketing surveillance • Evolving concerns about safety • Establishing risk-benefit margins • Learn about use, Rx decisions, compliance and other physician/patient behaviors • To evaluate a risk management program

  10. Clinical trial vs observational studies/registries – four “toos” • Too few • Too brief • Too simple • Too median-aged

  11. Implications of four “toos” • Relative effectiveness unknown • Effectiveness in comparison to alternative therapies • Surrogate vs. clinical endpoints • Bone mineral density, blood pressure, lipid levels, tumor size, joint counts vs radiographic damage • Infrequent adverse events • Long latency adverse events • DES & adenocarcinoma of vagina • Special populations • Women, children, elderly, multiple comorbidities • Drug use in clinical practice

  12. What is a registry? • Definition of a registry • An organized system that uses observational study methods to collect uniform data (clinical and other) to evaluate specified outcomes for a population defined by particular disease, condition or exposure, and that serves a predetermined scientific, clinical, or policy purpose(s). • Different types of registries • Disease registry • Product registry • Health services registry • Pregnancy registries Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes. AHRQ Publication No. 07-EHC001. May 2007.

  13. Purpose of a registry • Describe the natural history of disease • Determine clinical effectiveness or cost effectiveness of health care products, drugs and services • Measure or monitor safety and harm • Measure quality of care

  14. Registry types • Disease registry • Patients who have the same diagnosis • e.g. all RA or SLE patients or rheumatic diseases • Product registry • Patients who have been exposed to biopharmaceutical products or medical devices • Health services registry • Patients who have had a common procedure, clinical encounter or hospitalization (TKA-THA registries)

  15. Registries useful when: • Outcome is relatively common, well-defined and ascertainable & serious • Extensive drug exposure • Appropriate reference group • Data on relevant covariates ascertainable • Minimal channeling (preferential prescribing of a new drug to patients at a higher risk) • Minimal confounding by indication • Onset latency <2-3 years • Required drug exposure <2-3 years • Not an urgent drug safety crisis

  16. Registries may not be useful when: • Outcome: poorly-defined, difficult to validate outcomes (depression, psychosis) • Exposure • Rare drug exposure • Intermittent exposure • OTC drugs, herbals • Significant confounding by indication • Antidepressants and suicides • Inhaled beta-agonists and asthma death • Certain settings • Specialty clinics, in-hospital drug use

  17. Consequences of not doing registries or observational studies • Arguing over case reports • Lack of data on real benefit-risk balance • Less effective and usually biased decision-making • Possibly false conclusions • Law suits

  18. Types of observational studies in rheumatology

  19. Drug exposed patients Case reports Case series Registries Other Ecological studies Exposed vs. unexposed Cross-sectional Prospective cohort Case-control Observational study designs

  20. Ecological studies – time series • When drug is predominant cause of the disease • Changes in outcomes following an abrupt change in drug exposure, as result of a policy or regulatory change, publications, media coverage • Reported Cases of Reye's Syndrome in Relation to the Timing of Public Announcements Belay et al. NEJM 1999; 340:1377

  21. Ecological studies – time seriesSecular trends in NSAID use and colorectal cancer incidence Lamont: Cancer J 2008:14(4):276-277

  22. Ecological studies – time seriesRofecoxib-celecoxib and myocardial infarction Brownstein et al. PLoS ONE. 2007:2(9):e840.

  23. Summary: ecological studies Limitations • Complexity of disease causation • Confounding by the “ecological fallacy” Advantages • Cost ↓, time ↓, using routinely collected data • New hypotheses about the causes of a disease and new potential risk factors (e.g. air pollution) • Provides estimates of causal effects that are not attenuated by measurement error • Some risk factors for disease operate at the population level (i.e. SES status)

  24. Studies on descriptive epidemiology of rheumatic diseases Incidence Prevalence Mortality

  25. Diseased (RA) N=9 Prevalence:Proportion of individuals in a defined population who have a particular disease at a given point in time Population on 1/1/2005 N=100 Prevalence = 9/100 Prevalence = Incidence of disease x Duration of disease Diseased individuals

  26. Incidence: Proportion of new cases of a disease or health-related condition in a population-at-risk over a specified period of time Population on 1/1/2005 N=100 1 year f-up Exclude prevalent cases leaving N=91 at risk Incidence=2 cases/91 person-years New-onset disease during 1 yr f-up Diseased individuals on 1/1/2005 deceased

  27. Incidence of RA in Olmsted County, MN (1955-2005) Gabriel et al. A&R 2008: 58(9):S453

  28. Incidence of PSA by age and sex (1970-2000) 20 15 Male 10 Incidence rate (per 100,000) 5 Female 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Age Wilson et al. AC&R 2009: in press.

  29. Incidence study requires keeping track of both the numerator & denominator! Population on 1/1/2005 N=100 1 yr 1 yr • Residents who die or move out of the city • New residents (i.e. new folks who move into the city) • All new-onset disease while living in the city • Possible in few locations in the world

  30. Mortality analyses • RA: 124 studies in 84 unique cohorts1 • 15 key points in interpretation1 • Incident vs prevalent cases • Population-based vs clinic-based • SMR • Cause-specific mortality2 • 3 time dimensions in mortality analyses3 • Duration of RA • Timing of onset of RA relative to death • Calendar time 1 Sokka et al. Clinical Exp Rheum 2008;26(Suppl. 51): S35-S61 2 Aviña-Zubieta et al. A&R 2008; 59:1690-1697 3 Ward. A&R 2008; 59: 1687-1689

  31. Mortality in incidence cohorts < prevalence cohorts 1 Sokka et al. Clinical Exp Rheum 2008; 26 (Suppl. 51): S-35-S-61 2 Aviña-Zubieta et al. A&R 2008; 59:1690-1697

  32. Mild disease Referral bias: Population-based vs clinic-based cohorts Reality in the population N=100 What the GP sees N=92 What the rheumatologist sees! N= 40

  33. SMR • Observed deaths ÷ expected deaths • Strongly influenced by choice of data to calculate expected deaths • Age and gender specific • Time period • Complete follow-up • Example: • RA cohort assembled between 1970-1990 with follow-up until 2000 • Expected mortality derived from US mortality rates between 1970-1990

  34. 5 5 4 4 3 3 Mortality Rate (per 100 py) Mortality Rate (per 100 py) 2 2 1 1 0 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 1970 1980 1990 2000 Calendar Year Calendar Year Trends in RA Mortality vs. Expected* Males Females RA RA Expected Expected Gonzalez A, et al. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56(11):3583-587

  35. Observed: expected mortality in RA Expected (non-RA) Observed (RA) Survival (%) P<0.001 0 5 10 15 20 Years after RA incidence Gabriel et al. A&R 2003; 48:54-58

  36. Time: disease duration and CV mortality in RA Maradit Kremers A&R 2005; 52: 722-732

  37. Summary: incidence, prevalence and mortality Consider • Underlying data source • Population-based or not • Incident vs prevalent cases • Methodology • Case ascertainment • Completeness of follow-up • Comparison data!

  38. Disease definitions and classification criteria in rheumatic diseases Developed using observational study methodologies

  39. 100 80 2 or more 60 3 or more Cumulative incidence, % 40 4 or more 20 5 or more 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Years since RA incidence Dynamic nature of rheumatic diseases • 25% who initially met RA criteria still had evidence of RA 3-5 years later O’Sullivan et al. Ann Intern Med 1972; 76: 573-7. Mikkelsen et al. A&R 1969; 12: 87-91. Lichtenstein et al. J Rheumatol 1991; 18: 989-93. Icen et al. J Rheumatol 2008.

  40. Typical vs desired methodology for classification criteria TYPICAL DESIRED Observe disease evolution Patients with established disease Patients with new-onset disease Compare characteristics Compare characteristics Patients with other established rheumatic diseases Patients with other new-onset rheumatic diseases Observe disease evolution

  41. Examining outcomes and risk factors in rheumatic diseases Cohort Studies (outcomes) Registries (outcomes) Case-control studies (risk factors)

  42. Types of Cohort Studies • Designated by the timing of data collection in the investigator’s time: • Prospective • Retrospective (historical) • Mixed • Mayo studies: retrospective • Registries: prospective

  43. Investigator begins study Investigator begins study Investigator begins study Types of Cohort Studies Selection of Cohort Prospective (concurrent) Study Retrospective non-concurrent Study Mixed (P+R) Study All designs feasible either as ad hoc registries or in automated database studies.

  44. Cohort study: design options • Prospective vs. retrospective • Entry into cohort: closed or open • Timing of exposure: new users or not • Source of un-exposed cohort • Internal • External • drug exposed subjects only, registries

  45. Cohort Study: Steps • Cohort identification • Define subjects & follow-up period • Risk factor/drug exposure measurement throughout follow-up • Outcome (disease) ascertainment • Confounder measurements (throughout follow-up) • Analysis

  46. Step 1 - Cohort identification • Trade-off between external and internal validity • Retrospective vs. prospective • Consider feasibility and costs • Follow-up • Tracking of drug changes over time • Losses to follow-up, esp. if likely to be differential (different for drug users and non-users)

  47. Step 2 – Risk factor/Drug exposure measurement • New versus old users • Ability to account confounders before drug started • Ability to quantify outcomes early after starting the drug (compliance, early drop-offs due to intolerance) • Incomplete drug exposure • E.g. One time measurement of DMARD use and mortality • Drug exposure metric • Ever/never, dose (average, cumulative), duration • Reference group • Non-users, past users, users of other drugs • Misclassification of episodic use

  48. Step 2 - Timing: patterns of drug use Antibiotic NSAIDs DMARDs

  49. Step 2 - Drug exposure measurement methods • Interviews • Face-to-face, phone or self-administered • Excellent to capture current use but not for past use or changing drug use over time • Loss of memory – cognitively intact subjects & regularly used drugs • Biological testing • Blood or urine • Excellent to capture current use but not for past use • Non-differential (unless disease affects the assay) • Pharmacy or claims records • Medical records

  50. Step 2 - Pharmacy or claims records for drug exposure • Drugs obtained by prescription • Drug details available • Accurate & complete for both past and current drug exposure • Temporal tracking possible • Limitation  compliance • Prescription filled and drug taking • Validation studies are necessary

More Related