Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Predicting pharmacotherapeutic outcomes for type 2 diabetes: : An evaluation of three approaches to leveraging electronic health record data from multiple sources

Published: 01 May 2022 Publication History

Graphical abstract

Display Omitted

Highlights

Three methods for building predictive models from multicenter electronic health record data are compared for clinical decision support in type 2 diabetes mellitus pharmacotherapy.
Two of the three approaches, Selecting Better and Weighted Average, allowed the source data to remain within institutional boundaries by using pre-built prediction models; the third, Combining Data, aggregated raw patient data into a single dataset before the model was built.
The Weighted Average and Combining Data approaches outperformed single institutional models with regard to prediction performance.
Combining Data achieved the broadest coverage of treatment patterns.

Abstract

Electronic health record (EHR) data are increasingly used to develop prediction models to support clinical care, including the care of patients with common chronic conditions. A key challenge for individual healthcare systems in developing such models is that they may not be able to achieve the desired degree of robustness using only their own data. A potential solution—combining data from multiple sources—faces barriers such as the need for data normalization and concerns about sharing patient information across institutions. To address these challenges, we evaluated three alternative approaches to using EHR data from multiple healthcare systems in predicting the outcome of pharmacotherapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Two of the three approaches, named Selecting Better (SB) and Weighted Average  (WA), allowed the data to remain within institutional boundaries by using pre-built prediction models; the third, named Combining Data (CD), aggregated raw patient data into a single dataset. The prediction performance and prediction coverage of the resulting models were compared to single-institution models to help judge the relative value of adding external data and to determine the best method to generate optimal models for clinical decision support. The results showed that models using WA and CD achieved higher prediction performance than single-institution models for common treatment patterns. CD outperformed the other two approaches in prediction coverage, which we defined as the number of treatment patterns predicted with an Area Under Curve of 0.70 or more. We concluded that 1) WA is an effective option for improving prediction performance for common treatment patterns when data cannot be shared across institutional boundaries and 2) CD is the most effective approach when such sharing is possible, especially for increasing the range of treatment patterns that can be predicted to support clinical decision making.

References

[1]
B.A. Goldstein, A.M. Navar, M.J. Pencina, J.P. Ioannidis, Opportunities and challenges in developing risk prediction models with electronic health records data: a systematic review, J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 24 (1) (2017) 198–208,.
[2]
N.G. Weiskopf, C. Weng, Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research, J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 20 (1) (2013 Jan 1) 144–151,.
[3]
N.G. Weiskopf, G. Hripcsak, S. Swaminathan, C. Weng, Defining and measuring completeness of electronic health records for secondary use, J. Biomed. Inform. 46 (5) (2013 Oct) 830–836,.
[4]
E. Rapsomaniki, A. Shah, P. Perel, S. Denaxas, J. George, O. Nicholas, R. Udumyan, G.S. Feder, A.D. Hingorani, A. Timmis, L. Smeeth, H. Hemingway, Prognostic models for stable coronary artery disease based on electronic health record cohort of 102,023 patients, Eur. Heart J. 35 (13) (2014) 844–852,.
[5]
D. Kotz, C.R. Simpson, W. Viechtbauer, O.C. van Schayck, A. Sheikh, Development and validation of a model to predict the 10-year risk of general practitioner-recorded COPD, NPJ Prim Care Respir Med. 24 (2014) 14011,.
[6]
J. Hippisley-Cox, C. Coupland, Predicting risk of upper gastrointestinal bleed and intracranial bleed with anticoagulants: cohort study to derive and validate the QBleed scores, BMJ 349 (jul28 14) (2014),.
[7]
M.J. Rothman, S.I. Rothman, J. Beals 4th, Development and validation of a continuous measure of patient condition using the electronic medical record, J. Biomed. Inform. 46 (5) (2013) 837–848,.
[8]
F. Zerka, S. Barakat, S. Walsh, M. Bogowicz, R.T.H. Leijenaar, A. Jochems, B. Miraglio, D. Townend, P. Lambin, Systematic review of privacy-preserving distributed machine learning from federated databases in health care, JCO Clin. Cancer Inform. (4) (2020) 184–200,.
[9]
T.M. Deist, A. Jochems, J. van Soest, G. Nalbantov, C. Oberije, S. Walsh, M. Eble, P. Bulens, P. Coucke, W. Dries, A. Dekker, P. Lambin, Infrastructure and distributed learning methodology for privacy-preserving multi-centric rapid learning health care: euroCAT, Clin. Transl. Radiat. Oncol. 4 (2017) 24–31,.
[10]
A. Jochems, T.M. Deist, J. van Soest, M. Eble, P. Bulens, P. Coucke, W. Dries, P. Lambin, A. Dekker, Distributed learning: developing a predictive model based on data from multiple hospitals without data leaving the hospital—a real life proof of concept, Radiother. Oncol. 121 (3) (2016) 459–467,.
[11]
A. Jochems, T.M. Deist, I. El Naqa, M. Kessler, C. Mayo, J. Reeves, S. Jolly, M. Matuszak, R. Ten Haken, J. van Soest, C. Oberije, C. Faivre-Finn, G. Price, D. de Ruysscher, P. Lambin, A. Dekker, Developing and validating a survival prediction model for NSCLC patients through distributed learning across 3 countries, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 99 (2) (2017) 344–352,.
[12]
L. Tagliaferri, C. Gobitti, G.F. Colloca, L. Boldrini, E. Farina, C. Furlan, F. Paiar, F. Vianello, M. Basso, L. Cerizza, F. Monari, G. Simontacchi, M.A. Gambacorta, J. Lenkowicz, N. Dinapoli, V. Lanzotti, R. Mazzarotto, E. Russi, M. Mangoni, A new standardized data collection system for interdisciplinary thyroid cancer management: thyroid COBRA, Eur. J. Intern. Med. 53 (2018) 73–78,.
[13]
T.S. Brisimi, R. Chen, T. Mela, A. Olshevsky, I.C. Paschalidis, W. Shi, Federated learning of predictive models from federated electronic health records, Int. J. Med. Inform. 112 (2018) 59–67,.
[14]
Y.P.H. Chin, W. Song, C.E. Lien, C.H. Yoon, W.-C. Wang, J. Liu, P.A. Nguyen, Y.T. Feng, L.i. Zhou, Y.C.J. Li, D.W. Bates, Assessing the international transferability of a machine learning model for detecting medication error in the general internal medicine clinic: multicenter preliminary validation study, JMIR Med. Inform. 9 (1) (2021) e23454,.
[15]
P. Patil, G. Parmigiani, Training replicable predictors in multiple studies, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115 (11) (2018) 2578–2583,.
[16]
J.A. Park, M.D. Sung, H.H. Kim, Y.R. Park, Weight-Based Framework for Predictive Modeling of Multiple Databases With Noniterative Communication Without Data Sharing: Privacy-Protecting Analytic Method for Multi-Institutional Studies, JMIR Med. Inform. 9 (4) (2021) Published 2021 Apr 5. http://doi.org/10.2196/21043.
[17]
P. Saeedi, I. Petersohn, P. Salpea, B. Malanda, S. Karuranga, N. Unwin, S. Colagiuri, L. Guariguata, A.A. Motala, K. Ogurtsova, et al., Global and regional diabetes prevalence estimates for 2019 and projections for 2030 and 2045: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 157 (2019),.
[18]
American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes—2021, Diabetes Care 44 (Suppl 1) (2021) S1–S2.
[19]
S.V. Edelman, W.H. Polonsky, Type 2 diabetes in the real world: the elusive nature of glycemic control, Diabetes Care 40 (11) (2017) 1425–1432,.
[20]
K. Khunti, M.B. Gomes, S. Pocock, M.V. Shestakova, S. Pintat, P. Fenici, N. Hammar, J. Medina, Therapeutic inertia in the treatment of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review, Diabetes Obes. Metab. 20 (2) (2018) 427–437,.
[21]
S. Stark Casagrande, J.E. Fradkin, S.H. Saydah, K.F. Rust, C.C. Cowie, The prevalence of meeting A1C, blood pressure, and LDL goals among people with diabetes, 1988–2010, Diabetes Care 36 (08) (2013) 2271–2279.
[22]
M.S. Kirkman, M.T. Rowan-Martin, R. Levin, et al., Determinants of adherence to diabetes medications: findings from a large pharmacy claims database, Diabetes Care 38 (04) (2015) 604–609.
[23]
J. Okemah, J. Peng, M. Quiñones, Addressing clinical inertia in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a review, Adv. Ther. 35 (11) (2018) 1735–1745.
[24]
G. Reach, V. Pechtner, R. Gentilella, A. Corcos, A. Ceriello, Clinical inertia and its impact on treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, Diabetes Metab. 43 (6) (2017) 501–511,.
[25]
W.D. Strain, M. Blüher, P. Paldánius, Clinical inertia in individualizing care for diabetes: is there time to do more in type 2 diabetes?, Diabetes Ther. 5 (02) (2014) 347–354.
[26]
K. Khunti, D. Millar-Jones, Clinical inertia to insulin initiation and intensification in the UK: a focused literature review, Prim Care Diabetes. 11 (1) (2017) 3–12,.
[27]
C.J. McDonald, J.M. Overhage, M. Barnes, G. Schadow, L. Blevins, P.R. Dexter, B. Mamlin, The Indiana network for patient care: a working local health information infrastructure—an example of a working infrastructure collaboration that links data from five health systems and hundreds of millions of entries, Health Aff. (Millwood). 24 (5) (2005) 1214–1220,.
[28]
B. Dixon, (Ed.), Health information exchange: navigating and managing a network of health information systems. Elsevier Academic Press; 2016. 376 p. http://doi.org/10.1016/C2014-0-03433-8.
[29]
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. HCUP User Support (HCUP-US) [Internet]. Rockville, MD, 2021 [updated 2021 Sep 08; cited 2021 Sep 10]. Available from: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/.
[30]
J. Cohen, Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edition, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988.
[31]
H. Cramér, Mathematical Methods of Statistics, Princeton, Press, Princeton, NJ, 1946.
[32]
S. Tarumi, W. Takeuchi, G. Chalkidis, et al., Leveraging artificial intelligence to improve chronic disease care: methods and application to pharmacotherapy decision support for type-2 diabetes mellitus, Methods Inf. Med., 60 (S 01) (2021) e32–e43, http://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1728757.
[33]
S.R. Künzel, J.S. Sekhon, P.J. Bickel, B. Yu, Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116 (10) (2019) 4156–4165,.
[34]
H. Drucker, C.J.C. Burges, L. Kaufman, A. Smola, V. Vapnik, Support vector regression machines, Adv. Neural Inf. Process Syst. 9 (1997) 155–161.
[35]
D.R. Cox, The regression analysis of binary sequences (with discussion), J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B 20 (1958) 215–242,.
[36]
M.D. Wilkinson, M. Dumontier, I.J. Aalbersberg, et al., The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship [published correction appears in Sci Data. 2019 Mar 19;6(1):6]. Sci. Data. 2016;3:160018. Published 2016 Mar 15. http://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Strategies for secondary use of real-world clinical and administrative data for outcome ascertainment in pragmatic clinical trialsJournal of Biomedical Informatics10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104587150:COnline publication date: 1-Feb-2024

Index Terms

  1. Predicting pharmacotherapeutic outcomes for type 2 diabetes: An evaluation of three approaches to leveraging electronic health record data from multiple sources
            Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Information & Contributors

            Information

            Published In

            cover image Journal of Biomedical Informatics
            Journal of Biomedical Informatics  Volume 129, Issue C
            May 2022
            166 pages

            Publisher

            Elsevier Science

            San Diego, CA, United States

            Publication History

            Published: 01 May 2022

            Author Tags

            1. Artificial intelligence
            2. Clinical decision support system
            3. Health information interoperability
            4. Disease management
            5. Chronic disease

            Author Tags

            1. AUC-ROC
            2. CCS
            3. CD
            4. CDS
            5. DPP4
            6. eGFR
            7. EHR
            8. GLP1
            9. HbA1c
            10. IM
            11. INPC
            12. INS
            13. LDL
            14. LR
            15. MET
            16. NDC
            17. PDC
            18. SB
            19. SGLT2
            20. SUL
            21. TPGE
            22. TZD
            23. T2DM
            24. UUH
            25. WA

            Qualifiers

            • Research-article

            Contributors

            Other Metrics

            Bibliometrics & Citations

            Bibliometrics

            Article Metrics

            • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
            • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
            Reflects downloads up to 13 Jan 2025

            Other Metrics

            Citations

            Cited By

            View all
            • (2024)Strategies for secondary use of real-world clinical and administrative data for outcome ascertainment in pragmatic clinical trialsJournal of Biomedical Informatics10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104587150:COnline publication date: 1-Feb-2024

            View Options

            View options

            Media

            Figures

            Other

            Tables

            Share

            Share

            Share this Publication link

            Share on social media