Phenotype Execution and Modelling Architecture (PhEMA) to support disease surveillance and real-world evidence studies: English sentinel network evaluation.

Abstract

Objective To evaluate Phenotype Execution and Modelling Architecture (PhEMA), to express sharable phenotypes using Clinical Query Language (CQL) and intensional SNOMED CT Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) valuesets, for exemplar chronic disease, sociodemographic risk factor and surveillance phenotypes.

Method We curated three phenotypes: Type 2 diabetes (T2DM), excessive alcohol use and incident influenza-like illness (ILI) using CQL to define clinical and administrative logic. We defined our phenotypes with valuesets, using SNOMED’s hierarchy and expression constraint language (ECL), and CQL, combining valuesets and adding temporal elements where needed. We compared the count of cases found using PhEMA with our existing approach using convenience datasets.

Results The T2DM phenotype could be defined as two intensionally defined SNOMED valuesets and a CQL script. It increased the prevalence from 7.2% to 7.3%. Excess alcohol phenotype was defined by valuesets that added qualitative clinical terms to the quantitative conceptual definitions we currently use; this change increased prevalence by 58%, from 1.2% to 1.9%. We created an ILI valueset with SNOMED concepts, adding a temporal element using CQL to differentiate new episodes. This increased the weekly incidence in our convenience sample (weeks 26 to 38) from 0.95 cases to 1.11 cases per 100,000 people.

Conclusions Phenotypes for surveillance and research can be described fully and comprehensibly using CQL and intensional FHIR valuesets. Our use case phenotypes identified a greater number of cases, whilst anticipated from excessive alcohol this was not for our other variable. This may have been due to our use of SNOMED CT hierarchy.

Competing Interest Statement

SdeL is the Director of the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC). SdeL through his University has received funding from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GSK, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, Seqirus, and Takenda and been members of advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi and Seqirus. He has had meeting expenses funded by AstraZeneca. GJ has received payments from AstraZenica for educational talks and holds shares in GSK. Other authors have no conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript and additional files

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif