Cost-benefit assessment of using electronic health records data for clinical research versus current practices: Contribution of the Electronic Health Records for Clinical Research (EHR4CR) European Project

Contemporary Clinical Trials

Volumn 46, Issue , 2016, Pages 85-91

  Beresniak, Ariel ^a   Schmidt, Andreas ^b   Proeve, Johann ^c   Bolanos, Elena ^d   Patel, Neelam ^e   Ammour, Nadir ^f   Sundgren, Mats ^g   Ericson, Mats ^h   Karakoyun, Töresin ⁱ   Coorevits, Pascal ^j,k   Kalra, Dipak ^j   De Moor, Georges ^k   Dupont, Danielle ^a  

^a DATA MINING INTERNATIONAL   (Switzerland)

^b F HOFFMANN LA ROCHE LTD   (Switzerland)

^c BAYER PHARMA AG   (Germany)

^d ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (Spain)

^e ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

^f SANOFI   (France)

^g ASTRAZENECA R AND D   (Sweden)

^h Amgen SA   (France)

ⁱ HEINRICH HEINE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^j EuroRec Institute   (Belgium)

^k GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

more..

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Cost benefit analyses; Electronic health records

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG INDUSTRY; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EUROPE; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HUMAN; MARKET; MONTE CARLO METHOD; ONCOLOGY; PATIENT IDENTIFICATION; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; STUDY DESIGN; UNCERTAINTY; WORKFLOW; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ECONOMICS; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PROCEDURES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE II AS TOPIC; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE III AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; EUROPE; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; HUMANS; MONTE CARLO METHOD;

EID: 84949254858     PISSN: 15517144     EISSN: 15592030     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.11.011     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Tufts Rising protocol complexity, execution burden varies widely by phase and therapeutic areas (TA). Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD) Report 2010, 12(3). (http://www.centerwatch.com/news-online/article/2205/study-60-of-protocols-amended-during-clinical-trials#sthash.BaOZhSF6.CUMVzs4J.dpuf).
2. EFPIA The pharmaceutical industry in figures: key data. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) Report 2013 2013, 1-27.
3. Sertkaya A., et al. Examination of Clinical Trial Costs and Barriers for Drug Development July 25 2014, Easter Research Group Inc. http://aspe.hhs.gov/sp/reports/2014/ClinicalTrials/rpt_erg.pdf.
4. Mestre-Ferrandiz J., Sussex J., Towse A. The R&D Cost of a New Medicine 2012, Office of Health Economics.
5. Epstein R., Sidorov J., Lehner J.P., Salimi T. Integrating scientific and real-world evidence within and beyond the drug development process. J Comp Eff Res 2012, 1(Suppl. 1):9-13.
6. Salimi T., Lehner J.P., Epstein R.S. A framework for pharmaceutical value-based innovations. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 2012, 1(Suppl. 1):3-7.
7. Russo M., Balekdjian D. Weighing the outcomes: the emergent healthcare value era: its consequences and what drug firms need to do about it. Nat. Biotechnol. 2008, 26(2):173-182.
8. Kalra D., et al. Case report from the EHR4CR project - a European Survey on electronic health records systems for clinical research. iHealth Connect. 2011, 1(2):108-113.
9. Epstein R.S. R&D transformation and value-based innovation. J Comp Eff Res 2012, 1(1 Suppl.):1-2.
10. Sundgren M. Testing times for clinical trials. World Pharm. Front. 2013, 86-88.
11. Lehner J.P., Epstein R.S., Salimi T. Integrating new approaches for clinical development: translational research and relative effectiveness. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 2012, 1(1 Suppl):15-21.
12. Hillestad R., et al. Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff. 2005, 24(5):1103-1107.
13. Jensen P., Jensen L., Brunak S. Mining electronic health records: towards better research applications and clinical care. Nat. Rev. Genet. May 2 2012.
14. Van Staa T., et al. The opportunities and challenges of pragmatic point-of-care randomized trials using routinely collected electronic records: evaluations of two exemplar trials. Natl. Inst. Health Res. Health Technol. Assess. 2014, 18(43):1-141.
15. De Moor G., et al. Using electronic health records for clinical research: the case of the EHR4CR project. J. Biomed. Inform. 2014, 53:162-173.
16. Coorevits P., et al. Electronic health records: new opportunities for clinical research. J. Intern. Med. 2013, 274(6):547-560.
17. De Moor G., et al. Opportunities for clinical research in European hospitals: the EHR4CR platform. Health Manag. 2014, 14(3):59-60.
18. Weinstein M. Recent developments in decision-analytic modelling for economic evaluation. PharmacoEconomics 2006, 24(11):1043-1053.
19. Rajadhyaksha V. Conducting feasibilities in clinical trials: an investment to ensure a good study. Vaccine 2010, 1(3):106-109.
20. Getz K., Wenger J. Assessing the impact of protocol design change on clinical trial performance. Am. J. Ther. 2008, 15:449-456.
21. Alsumidaie M. Aggregated EMR: Mitigating Trial Risk through Quality by Design Protocols August 2014, Applied Clinical Trials online, (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140828131707-55450526-aggregated-emr-mitigating-trial-risk-through-quality-by-design-protocols).
22. Harper B., Christison N. Fixing the protocol feasibility process. J. Clin. Res. Best Pract. 2012, 8(1):1-6.
23. Soto-Rey I., et al. Protocol Feasibility Workflow Using an Automated Multi-Country Patient Cohort System. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics eHealth 2014, 985-989. - For Continuity of Care.
24. Hollada J., et al. Successful patient recruitment in CT imaging clinical trials: what factors influence patient participation?. Acad. Radiol. 2014, 21(1):52-57.
25. Bower P., et al. Improving recruitment to health research in primary care. Fam. Pract. 2009, 26(5):391-397.
26. Morrison B., et al. Monitoring the quality of conduct of clinical trials: a survey of current practices. Clin. Trials Lond. Engl. 2011, 8(3):342-349.
27. Tufts Analysis and Insight into Critical Drug Development Issues. Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD) Impact Report 2013, 15(1):1-4.
28. eClinicalForum EDC site survey: investigational site perspectives on clinical trial information systems. eClinical Forum 2009, (www.eclinicalforum.org).
29. Dorr D., et al. Quality of reporting of serious adverse drug events to an Institutional Review Board: a case study with the novel cancer agent, Imatinib Mesylate. Clin Cancer Res 2009, 15(11):3850-3855.
30. EvaluatePharma World Preview 2013, outlook to 2018. Evaluate Pharma Report 2013, (http://www.evaluategroup.com/public/EvaluePharma-Overview.aspx).
31. KMR KMR cost study and R&D covering 2005-2011. General Metric Study 2012, (Data on file).