Piloting the EHR4CR Feasibility Platform across Europe^[*]

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Background: Pharmaceutical clinical trials are primarily conducted across many countries, yet recruitment numbers are frequently not met in time. Electronic health records store large amounts of potentially useful data that could aid in this process. The EHR4CR project aims at re-using EHR data for clinical research purposes.

Objective: To evaluate whether the protocol feasibility platform produced by the Electronic Health Records for Clinical Research (EHR4CR) project can be installed and set up in accordance with local technical and governance requirements to execute protocol feasibility queries uniformly across national borders.

Methods: We installed specifically engineered software and warehouses at local sites. Approvals for data access and usage of the platform were acquired and terminology mapping of local site codes to central platform codes were performed. A test data set, or real EHR data where approvals were in place, were loaded into data warehouses. Test feasibility queries were created on a central component of the platform and sent to the local components at eleven university hospitals.

Results: To use real, de-identified EHR data we obtained permissions and approvals from ‘data controllers‘ and ethics committees. Through the platform we were able to create feasibility queries, distribute them to eleven university hospitals and retrieve aggregated patient counts of both test data and de-identified EHR data.

Conclusion: It is possible to install a uniform piece of software in different university hospitals in five European countries and configure it to the requirements of the local networks, while complying with local data protection regulations. We were also able set up ETL processes and data warehouses, to reuse EHR data for feasibility queries distributed over the EHR4CR platform.

^* Supplementary material published on our website www.methods-online.com

• References

• 1 Van der Wouden JC, Blankenstein AH, Huibers MJH, van der Windt D a WM, Stalman W a B, Verhagen AP. Survey among 78 studies showed that Lasagna’s law holds in Dutch primary care research. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60 (08) 819-824.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 McDonald AM, Knight RC, Campbell MK, Entwistle V, a, Grant AM, Cook J, a, Elbourne DR, Francis D, Garcia J, Roberts I, Snowdon C. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials 2006; 7: 9
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Dugas M, Lange M, Müller-Tidow C, Kirchhof P, Prokosch H-U. Routine data from hospital information systems can support patient recruitment for clinical studies. Clin Trials. 2010; 7 (02) 183-189.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Embi PJ, Jain A, Clark J, Bizjack S, Hornung R, Harris CM. Effect of a clinical trial alert system on physician participation in trial recruitment. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165 (19) 2272-2277.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Prokosch H-U. Ganslandt T. Perspectives for Medical Informatics. Methods Inf Med 2009; 48: 38-44.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Coorevits P, Sundgren M, Klein GO, Bahr A, Claerhout B, Daniel C, Dugas M, Dupont D, Schmidt A, Singleton P, De Moor G, Kalra D. Electronic health records: new opportunities for clinical research. J Intern Med 2013; 274 (06) 1-14.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Electronic Health Records for Clinical Research. www.ehr4cr.eu Accessed 2014: 5-4.
  Google Scholar
• 8 Innovative Medicines Initiative. http://www.imi.europa.eu/ Accessed 2014: 5-4.
  Google Scholar
• 9 Chen Y, Bache R, Miles S, Cuggia M. T. A SOA-based Platform for Automating Clinical Trial Feasibility Study. In: e-Health conference, Prague July. 2013
  Google Scholar
• 10 Bache R, Miles S, Taweel A. An adaptable architecture for patient cohort identification from diverse data sources. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013 Sep. 2013
  Google Scholar
• 11 Bedside I for IB and the. i2b2. www.i2b2.org/.Accessed 2014-5-4
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Doods J, Holzapfel K, Dugas M, Fritz F. Development of best practice principles for simplifying eligibility criteria. Stud Health Technol Inform 2013; 192: 1153
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Tate a R, Beloff N, Al-Radwan B, Wickson J, Puri S, Williams T, Van Staa T, Bleach A. Exploiting the potential of large databases of electronic health records for research using rapid search algorithms and an intuitive query interface. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013. Nov 1-7.
  Google Scholar
• 14 Roden DM, Pulley JM, Basford M a, Bernard GR, Clayton EW, Balser JR, Masys DR. Development of a large-scale de-identified DNA biobank to enable personalized medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008; 84 (03) 362-369.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Rea S, Pathak J, Savova G, Oniki T, aWestberg L, Beebe CE, Tao C, Parker CG, Haug PJ, Huff SM, Chute CG. Building a robust, scalable and standards-driven infrastructure for secondary use of EHR data: The SHARPn project. J Biomed Inform.2012; (February).
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Pathak J, Bailey KR, Beebe CE, Bethard S, Carrell DC, Chen PJ, Dligach D, Endle CM, Hart L, a, Haug PJ, Huff SM, Kaggal VC, Li D, Liu H, Marchant K, Masanz J, Miller T, Oniki T, a, Palmer M, Peterson KJ, Rea S, Savova GK, Stancl CR, Sohn S, Solbrig HR, Suesse DB, Tao C, Taylor DP, Westberg L, Wu S, Zhuo N, Chute CG. Normalization and standardization of electronic health records for high-throughput phenotyping: the SHARPn consortium. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013; Nov 1-8.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 McMurry AJ, Murphy SN, MacFadden D, Weber G, Simons WW, Orechia J, Bickel J, Wattanasin N, Gilbert C, Trevvett P, Churchill S, Kohane IS. SHRINE: enabling nationally scalable multi-site disease studies. PLoS One 2013; 8 (03) e55811
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Ouagne D, Hussain S, Sadou E, Jaulent M-C, Daniel C. The Electronic Healthcare Record for Clinical Research (EHR4CR) information model and terminology. Stud Health Technol Inform 2012; 180: 534-538.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar