Methods to refine and extend a Pregnancy Register in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink primary care databases.

PURPOSE: Real-world data represents a valuable tool for pregnancy research. However, an algorithmic approach is needed to ascertain pregnancy timings from this complex data. The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD Pregnancy Register, based on UK Primary care data, has therefore proven to be a valuable research tool. The same algorithmic approach was applied to the CPRD Aurum data to generate an equivalent register in the larger database. METHODS: Records of female patients registered with a CPRD Aurum contributing practice between the 1st of January 1987 and the 30th of April 2021 were searched for evidence of pregnancy. The algorithm used to generate the CPRD GOLD Pregnancy Register was redeveloped and applied first to CPRD GOLD and then to CPRD Aurum. The resulting CPRD Aurum Pregnancy Register was validated against the CPRD GOLD register, linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and the Office of National Statistics (ONS) live birth data. RESULTS: There are 16 833 427 pregnancy episodes in the CPRD Aurum Pregnancy Register from 6 724 615 women, more than double the number in CPRD GOLD. The distribution of pregnancy outcome types was comparable between the registers. Across the whole register, there was good concordance between pregnancy episodes found in CPRD Aurum and linked HES. However, both CPRD registers saw a declining number of pregnancy episodes from 2007 onwards, steeper than in HES or the ONS birth data. CONCLUSIONS: A pregnancy register has been created in CPRD Aurum. Changes in antenatal care policies in the UK have led to declining numbers of pregnancies in EHR primary care data. However, the creation of this pregnancy register has tripled the number of patients in the CPRD Pregnancy Registers and will increase the capacity to study pregnancy in CPRD data, particularly rare or emerging exposures, and outcomes.

Limitations for health research with restricted data collection from UK primary care.

PURPOSE: UK primary care provides a rich data source for research. The impact of proposed data collection restrictions is unknown. This study aimed to assess the impact of restricting the scope of electronic health record (EHR) data collection on the ability to conduct research. The study estimated the consequences of restricted data collection on published Clinical Practice Research Datalink studies from high impact journals or referenced in clinical guidelines. METHODS: A structured form was used to systematically analyse the extent to which individual studies would have been possible using a database with data collection restrictions in place: (1) retrospective collection of specified diseases only; (2) retrospective collection restricted to a 6- or 12-year period; (3) prospective and retrospective collection restricted to non-sensitive data. Outcomes were categorised as unfeasible (not reproducible without major bias); compromised (feasible with design modification); or unaffected. RESULTS: Overall, 91% studies were compromised with all restrictions in place; 56% studies were unfeasible even with design modification. With restrictions on diseases alone, 74% studies were compromised; 51% were unfeasible. Restricting collection to 6/12 years had a major impact, with 67 and 22% of studies compromised, respectively. Restricting collection of sensitive data had a lesser but marked impact with 10% studies compromised. CONCLUSION: EHR data collection restrictions can profoundly reduce the capacity for public health research that underpins evidence-based medicine and clinical guidance. National initiatives seeking to collect EHRs should consider the implications of restricting data collection on the ability to address vital public health questions.

Is real world evidence influencing practice? A systematic review of CPRD research in NICE guidances.

BACKGROUND: There is currently limited evidence regarding the extent Real World Evidence (RWE) has directly impacted the health and social care systems. The aim of this review is to identify national guidelines or guidances published in England from 2000 onwards which have referenced studies using the governmental primary care data provider the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). METHODS: The methodology recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was followed. Four databases were searched and documents of interest were identified through a search algorithm containing keywords relevant to CPRD. A search diary was maintained with the inclusion/exclusion decisions which were performed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Twenty-five guidance documents were included in the final review (following screening and assessment for eligibility), referencing 43 different CPRD/GPRD studies, all published since 2007. The documents covered 12 disease areas, with the majority (N =7) relevant to diseases of the Central Nervous system (CNS). The 43 studies provided evidence of disease epidemiology, incidence/prevalence, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacovigilance and health utilisation. CONCLUSIONS: A slow uptake of RWE in clinical and therapeutic guidelines (as provided by UK governmental structures) was noticed. However, there seems to be an increasing trend in the use of healthcare system data to inform clinical practice, especially as the real world validity of clinical trials is being questioned. In order to accommodate this increasing demand and meet the paradigm shift expected, organisations need to work together to enable or improve data access, undertake translational and relevant research and establish sources of reliable evidence.