Administrative databases are widely available and have been extensively used to provide estimates of chronic disease prevalence for the purpose of surveillance of both geographical and temporal trends. There are, however, other sources of data available, such as medical records from primary care and national surveys. In this paper we compare disease prevalence estimates obtained from these three different data sources.

Although postmarketing studies conducted in population‐based databases often contain information on patients in the order of millions, they can still be underpowered if outcomes or exposure of interest is rare, or the interest is in subgroup effects. Combining several databases might provide the statistical power needed. A multi‐database study (MDS) uses at least two healthcare databases, which are not linked with each other at an individual person level, with analyses carried out in parallel across each database applying a common study protocol. Although many MDSs have been performed in Europe in the past 10 years, there is a lack of clarity on the peculiarities and implications of the existing strategies to conduct them. In this review, we identify four strategies to execute MDSs, classified according to specific choices in the execution: (A) local analyses, where data are extracted and analyzed locally, with programs developed by each site; (B) sharing of raw data, where raw data are locally extracted and transferred without analysis to a central partner, where all the data are pooled and analyzed; (C) use of a common data model with study‐specific data, where study‐specific data are locally extracted, loaded into a common data model, and processed locally with centrally developed programs; and (D) use of general common data model, where all local data are extracted and loaded into a common data model, prior to and independent of any study protocol, and protocols are incorporated in centrally developed programs that run locally. We illustrate differences between strategies and analyze potential implications.

In May 2020, the ACCESS (The vACCine covid-19 monitoring readinESS) project was launched to prepare real-world monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines. Within this project, this study aimed to generate background incidence rates of 41 adverse events of special interest (AESI) to contextualize potential safety signals detected following administration of COVID-19 vaccines. A dynamic cohort study was conducted using a distributed data network of 10 healthcare databases from 7 European countries (Italy, Spain, Denmark, The Netherlands, Germany, France and United Kingdom) over the period 2017 to 2020. A common protocol (EUPAS37273), common data model, and common analytics programs were applied for syntactic, semantic and analytical harmonization. Incidence rates (IR) for each AESI and each database were calculated by age and sex by dividing the number of incident cases by the total person-time at risk. Age-standardized rates were pooled using random effect models according to the provenance of the events. A total number of 63,456,074 individuals were included in the study, contributing to 211.7 million person-years. A clear age pattern was observed for most AESIs, rates also varied by provenance of disease diagnosis (primary care, specialist care). Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia rates were extremely low ranging from 0.06 to 4.53/100,000 person-years for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) with thrombocytopenia (TP) and mixed venous and arterial thrombosis with TP, respectively. Given the nature of the AESIs and the setting (general practitioners or hospital-based databases or both), background rates from databases that show the highest level of completeness (primary care and specialist care) should be preferred, others can be used for sensitivity. The study was designed to ensure representativeness to the European population and generalizability of the background incidence rates. The project has received support from the European Medicines Agency under the Framework service contract nr EMA/2018/28/PE.

For chronic conditions, disparities can take effect cumulatively at various times as the disease progresses, even when care is provided. The aim of this study was to quantify the prevalence of diabetes, congestive heart failure (CHF) and coronary heart disease (CHD) in adults by citizenship, and to compare the performance of primary care services in managing these chronic conditions, again by citizenship. This is a population-based retrospective cohort study on 1,948,622 people aged 16 years or more residing in Italy. A multilevel regression model was applied to analyze adherence to care processes using explanatory variables at both patient and district level. The age-adjusted prevalence of diabetes was found higher among immigrants from high migratory pressure countries (HMPC) than among Italians, while the age-adjusted prevalence of CHD and CHF was higher for Italians than for HMPC immigrants or those from highly-developed countries (HDC). Our results indicate lower levels in all quality management indicators for citizens from HMPC than for Italians, for all the chronic conditions considered. Patients from HDC did not differ from Italian in their adherence to disease management schemes. This study revealed a different prevalence of chronic diseases by citizenship, implying a different burden of primary care by citizenship. Our findings show that more effort is needed to guarantee migrant-sensitive primary health care.

Introduction: We see increased use of existing observational data in order to achieve fast and transparent production of empirical evidence in health care research. Multiple databases are often used to increase power, to assess rare exposures or outcomes, or to study diverse populations. For privacy and sociological reasons, original data on individual subjects can’t be shared, requiring a distributed network approach where data processing is performed prior to data sharing.Case Descriptions and Variation Among Sites: We created a conceptual framework distinguishing three steps in local data processing: (1) data reorganization into a data structure common across the network; (2) derivation of study variables not present in original data; and (3) application of study design to transform longitudinal data into aggregated data sets for statistical analysis. We applied this framework to four case studies to identify similarities and differences in the United States and Europe: Exploring and Understanding Adverse Drug Reactions by Integrative Mining of Clinical Records and Biomedical Knowledge(EU-ADR),Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership(OMOP), the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Mini-Sentinel, and the Italian network—the Integration of Content Management Information on the Territory of Patients with Complex Diseases or with Chronic Conditions (MATRICE).Findings: National networks (OMOP, Mini-Sentinel, MATRICE) all adopted shared procedures for local data reorganization. The multinational EU-ADR network needed locally defined procedures to reorganize its heterogeneous data into a common structure. Derivation of new data elements was centrally defined in all networks but the procedure was not shared in EU-ADR. Application of study design was a common and shared procedure in all the case studies. Computer procedures were embodied in different programming languages, including SAS, R, SQL, Java, and C++.Conclusion: Using our conceptual framework we found several areas that would benefit from research to identify optimal standards for production of empirical knowledge from existing databases.