Evolution 2013: Prof. Dr. Georges De Moor, EuroRec on Liberating Health Data to accelerate High Quality Clinical Research

“Breaking Barriers: Liberating Health Data to
accelerate High Quality Clinical Research”
Prof. Dr. Georges De Moor

Dept. of Medical Informatics and Statistics,
Ghent University, Belgium & - RAMIT European Institute for Health Records - EuroRec - Custodix Monte Carlo, 21.10.13

Prof. Dr. G. De Moor

1 of 66

EuroRec
• The EuroRec Institute (EuroRec) is a European
independent not-for-profit organisation, whose main
purpose is promoting the real use of high quality
Electronic Health Record systems (EHRs) in Europe.
• EuroRec is overarching a permanent network of national
ProRec centres and provides services to industry
(developers and vendors), healthcare systems and
providers (buyers), policy makers and patients.
• EuroRec produced and maintains a substantial resource
with ± 1700 functional quality criteria for EHR-systems,
categorised, indexed and translated in 19 European
languages. The EuroRec Use Tools help users to handle
this resource.
Monte Carlo, 21.10.13


2 of 66

Introduction

• Amount of information to support medicine and healthcare is exploding
• ICT is transforming both biomedical research and healthcare (e-Health)
• The way scientists ‘do science’ is changing (a revolution)
• Electronic Health Records (EHRs) are gaining - in combination with emerging
infrastructures - an important novel supporting role for clinical research



3 of 66

Capture, Combine, Co-interpret Data
from diverse Information Sources
Population Registries,
Clinical Trial Data-Bases,
Bio-Bank data

EHRs, PHRs, Ancillary DBs
and other Clinical Applications

Data
Information
Knowledge

Social Networks

Care Pathways Systems,
Decision Support Systems,
Trends and Alerting Systems


Mobile Devices,
Apps (medical/well-being)
Bio-sensors and Body Implants
4 of 66

Capture, Combine, Co-interpret Data
from diverse Information Sources

Clinical data

“-Omics” data

Environmental data

(genomics, proteomics, metabolomics…)

(pollution, nutrition…)



5 of 66

Leveraging Knowledge Discovery
Data
interpretation

Information
(Wisdom)
interpretation

Knowledge

Decision

Action


6 of 66

Electronic Health Records & systems: Trends
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Patient-centered (gatekeeper?), life long records
Multi-disciplinary / multi-professional / participative
Transmural, distributed and virtual
Structured and coded cf. semantic interoperability
More metadata (tagging and coding) at a “granular “ level
Natural language interfaces
Intelligent cf. decision support, clinical practice guidelines…
Predictive e.g. genetic data, physiological models (cf. ethics!)
More sensitive content (cf. privacy protection!)
Personalised
Integrative
Certified



7 of 66

What is an Electronic Health Record (EHR)?

• “One or more repositories, physically or virtually integrated, of information in
computer processable form, relevant to the wellness, health and health care
of an individual, capable of being stored and communicated securely and of
being accessible by multiple authorised users, represented according to a
standardised or commonly agreed logical information model. Its primary
purpose is the support of life-long, effective, high quality and safe integrated
health care”
•

(Kalra D. Editor. Requirements for an electronic health record reference architecture.
ISO 18308. International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva, 2011)

• Personalised Medicine means that Research no longer only needs data but
will use highly specific data from individual patients… hence the importance
of getting access to the EHRs…


8 of 66

Shift from … to … (in care)

Informed Healthcare Professionals

Informed Patient-Care (EBM)

Patient-Informed Care



9 of 66

Shift from … to …

Patient - Trust - Physician
?
?

?

Patient - Trust? -

Health Networks

?

?



10 of 66

Convergence Initiative (of EuroRec)



11 of 66

The Convergence Initiative (March 2013)

To initiate and support cooperation and consensus building among
related e-Health projects (cf. data reuse, semantic interoperability…)
To identify opportunities
To identify and share results
To identify challenges
… towards a pan-EU e-Health Info-structure



12 of 66

(Clinical) Research

Controlled Clinical Trials
…
Pharmaco-vigilance
(non systematic list!)
Epidemiological studies
Public Health Research
Observational Research
Disease Management studies
Comparative Effectiveness Research (older drugs, multiple diseases…)
Diagnostic Research
Continued Surveillance
Health Technology Assessment
Health Systems Research
Cost Effectiveness Research

…



13 of 66

Data Sources for Clinical Research
Data sources

Advantages

Disadvantages

Electronic Health Record
(EHR) at a single
institution.

Easy management of rights and
consents.
Full clinical content, structured and
unstructured data. Possibly same
semantics for all.

Too few cases for many important studies.
No general purpose research tools.

Special Disease Registers
at a regional or national
level (often termed
“Quality Registers”).

Collect data from several
institutions.
Allow comparisons of results and
larger samples.
Well-defined data variables.

Limited and relatively fixed data set.
Changed rarely at the most yearly. No analyses of
types of variables other than those collected. More
complicated rights and consent management.
Extra work to record data. In some cases possible
to transfer data from an EHR. Often double
registration in EHR and Quality Register.

Special research database
systems for specific
projects (e.g. a regulated
clinical trial).

Very well-controlled variables
including functions to ensure
project process support and
reasonable compliance.

Expensive to set up for one project. Extra work
because data cannot be retrieved from EHRs and
extra work for clinical staff to transfer data from
screen or paper to the research system.

Federated system of
electronic health records
and special research
project tools.

May allow very large case
populations, especially if federation
across national borders.

Semantic interoperability and consent are difficult
to manage.



14 of 66

Focus

Focus of this presentation

the EHRs as data sources
and
the (re-)use of data for Clinical Research



15 of 66

EHRs: where are we?

• Rapid expansion in the last years => in some countries 90% of healthcare
records are digital
• OECD HCQI Country Survey 2012:
(http://www.oecd.org/els/healthsystems/strengtheninghealthinformationinfrastructure.htm)

In 13/25 countries + 70% physicians use EMRs
In 15/25 countries + 70% of the hospitals use EPRs
In 22/25 countries National plan to implement EHRs
In 18/25 countries a Minimum Data Set has been defined
• However…many legacy EHR systems do not provide at present a sufficient
basis for clinical research



16 of 66

Challenge: Data Quality

• The Quality of EHR systems and EHR data is important
– Third Party Certification of EHR systems is essential
– Quality assurance is needed
– Quality has many dimensions
Correctness
Completeness
Accuracy
Currency
Validity
…



17 of 66

The Data Content Issue

• Semantic Interoperability and Data Quality Markers:
-

in CARE: Faithfulness (cf. biases in coding, window dressing for
reimbursement…)

-

in RESEARCH: Faithfulness and Consistency

• Context Sensitivity and Specificity: depending on the context in which data
are captured, the meaning and the value of the data may vary… hence the
importance of “context specific” tags (and of metadata) in EHRs…



18 of 66

EuroRec’s profile for EHRs that are
compliant with Clinical Trials requirements
• Already in December 2009 EuroRec released a profile identifying the
functionalities required of an EHR system in order to be considered as a
reliable source of data for regulated clinical trials.
• Details of the profile, including information designed to support use, are
accessible from the EuroRec website. A sister profile has been endorsed by
Health Level Seven® (HL7®).
• As both the EuroRec and HL7 profiles draw upon the same standard
requirements for clinical trials, ”conforming to one” will mean, in principle
conformance to both.
• These requirements have contributed into a Work Item in ISO (TC/215), to
help shape a future International Standard.
• The EHR4CR Project expands the set of quality criteria for EHRs to be used
for research…



19 of 66

Semantics: an important Challenge
•
•
•
•

Natural Languages (in Europe: 23 official languages!)
Structured versus unstructured (narrative) records/messages
Many medical concepts and relations between concepts (many views!)
Terms (many medical terminologies!)

•
•
•
•

Ontologies
Information Models (e.g. EHR reference models…)
Semantic resources (detailed clinical models/ clinical archetypes/ templates)
Design an overall info-structure (a virtual platform and services) that can
publish or reference resources and manage their maintenance…
How to represent and convert “meaning”
from a “human understandable” form
in a
“computer processable” form?


20 of 66

Semantic Interoperability Resources
• Widespread and dependable access to maintained collections of coherent
and quality-assured semantic resources
– detailed clinical models, such as archetypes and templates
– rules for decision making and monitoring
– workflow logic
• which are
– mapped to EHR interoperability standards
– bound to well specified multi-lingual terminology value sets
– indexed and correlated with each other via ontologies
– referenced from modular (re-usable) care pathway components
•

establishes good practices in developing such resources


21 of 66

Example of a Representation of a
Clinical Practice Guideline
Refinement of
the above
statement

Diagostic
statement (which is
an IE) with
attribute
suspected, on
Heart Failure

ECG
Process

Diagostic
statement (which is
an IE) with
attribute unlikely,
on Heart Failure


This is a CGP (which is,
ontologically a plan, an
information entity) to
be used in a clinical
context of the
diagnosis "Suspected
Heart Failure)

Echo order
(plan)


22 of 66

Layered semantic models (1)
Objective : semantic interoperability between diverse systems
Standards in the domain of patient care (collective international efforts):
• ISO EN 13606
– Generic and comprehensive representation for the exchange of EHR
information (including fine-grained parts of EHRs)
• OpenEHR foundation
– Maintains a more detailed model, catering for the widest set of use cases
for patient level data
• HL7 Reference Information Model (RIM) and HL7 Clinical Document
Architecture (CDA)
– To communicate a single clinical document as a message (e.g. a discharge
summary)


23 of 66

Layered semantic models (2)

In the domain of Clinical Research
• Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC)
– Protocol Representation Model (PRM)
– Study Design Model (SDM)
– Operational Data Model (ODM)
• Clinical Data Acquisition Standards Harmonisation (CDASH)
• Biomedical Research Integrated Domain Group (BRIDG) model
Achieving S.I. across multiple domains requires the integration of multiple standards



24 of 66

Layered Semantic Models (3)

• Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise (IHE)
– Integration profiles
– IHE domain Quality, Research and Public Health (QRPH)
• Cancer Data Standards Repository (caDSR)
• CDISC Shared Health and Research Electronic Library (CSHARE)



25 of 66

Ethical, Legal and Privacy Protection
challenges to Federated Research

• The use of EHRs for clinical research is inevitably challenged both by legal,
ethical and privacy protection considerations
• Ethical issues are generally similar across different cultures and healthcare
systems
• Laws and regulations differ substantially
• Differences in law and ethical approaches and their interpretations create a
number of pragmatic issues



26 of 66

Pragmatic issues surrounding the
Re-use of EHR data for Clinical Research
Issue

Identified problems

Gaining retrospective consent

Too difficult, too costly or requires disproportionate effort (e.g. patients may
have moved or changed their names)

Gaining broad prospective consent

Difficult to ensure data subject is ‘fully informed’. Also, research methods and
detailed research questions may change. Is broad consent still valid?

Gaining dynamic consent

Model in which the data subjects are continuously informed about the project
progress and asked to reaffirm their consent with new directions seems to be
the solution in the Internet age, but there are also good arguments against
close inclusion of patients in research project steering

Gaining early consent (as part of
treatment)

May be deemed ‘coercive’

Legal position of ‘nearly
anonymised’ data

It would help scientists to understand what is really expected from them
to ensure compliancy when reusing EHRs for research

Use of the ‘precautionary principle’
by data ‘gatekeepers’

Practical interpretation will be more restrictive than legislators intended

Lack of consistency in
interpretation of legal position
between regulators or approval
bodies, such as research ethics
committees

This is especially important where the consent process may be affected



27 of 66

EHR review article



28 of 66

Consent vs. Trust model

• Consent model
– It is debatable whether explicit consent is required for reusing key-coded
(pseudonymised) EHR data for research and statistical purposes
– Special legislation may require primary EHR data to be submitted for public
health purposes without the need for consent of the data subject
• Trust model
– Reduce the information content so identification is no longer possible
(‘effectively anonymised’)
– Uncertainties of the legal position of ‘nearly anomymised’ data
– Finding a common approach is very difficult



29 of 66

Privacy Protection and
Security measures
• De-identification
– Microdata vs. aggregated results
– Numerous approaches (e.g. generalisation, suppression, global recoding,
etc …)
– K-anonymity
– Contextual anonymity
• Security
– ‘Basic’ security (authentication, authorisation and audit) is a fundamental
requirement of any IT system
– Access control management and enforcement
– Consent management



30 of 66

Important Federated
Clinical Research Initiatives (1)

United States
• i2b2
• eMERGE
• Kaiser Permanente Research Program on Genes, Environment and Health
(RPGEH)
• Million Veteran Program
• Stanford Translational Research Integrated Database Environment (STRIDE)



31 of 66

Important Federated
Clinical Research Initiatives (2)
Europe
• European Medical Information Framework (EMIF)
• Delivering European translational information & knowledge management
services (eTRIKS)
• Enabling information reuse by linking clinical research and care (EURECA)
• Integrative cancer research through innovative biomedical infrastructures
(INTEGRATE)
• Linked2Safety
• Scalable, Standard based Interoperability Framework for Sustainable Proactive
Post Market Safety Studies (SALUS)
• Translational Research and Patient Safety in Europe (TRANSFoRm)
• Electronic Health Records for Clinical Research: EHR4CR



32 of 66

EU Projects Unlocking the Data



33 of 66

The EHR4CR Consortium (1)

• 10 Pharmaceutical Companies (members of EFPIA)
• 23 Public Partners (Academia, Hospitals and SMEs)
• 5 Subcontractors
• One of the largest European public-private partnerships
• March 2011-February 2015: 4 years
• Budget: € +16 Million (EC DG Research & EFPIA)



34 of 66

The EHR4CR Consortium (2)



35 of 66

EHR4CR Outputs

Project outputs:
A robust, scalable and market-ready Technical Platform
An Innovative Business Model and Cost Benefit Analysis
Pilots (in 11 hospital networks and 5 countries) for validating the
solutions (by April 2014: target of 100 hospitals)
for different scenarios (e.g. patient recruitment);
across different therapeutic areas (e.g. oncology);
across several countries (under different legal frameworks).


36 of 66

The EHR4CR Services
• Clinical Trial Feasibility, i.e.
• Performing distributed queries
• Patient Recruitment, i.e.
• Distributing trial protocols to sites
• Collecting follow-up information on recruitment status from sites
• Actual patient recruitment
platform services)

local applications (supported by the

• Clinical Trial Execution & Serious Adverse Events Reporting, i.e.
• Mainly EHR extraction & pre-filling of forms
• Across
• Different therapeutic areas (oncology, inflammatory diseases,
neuroscience, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases etc.)
• Different legal frameworks (several countries)


37 of 66

The EHR4CR Platform

• The EHR4CR platform is
– a service platform which aims to unlock EHR data on an European/global
scale for research purposes, while ensuring compliance with data
protection and patient rights legislation
• Primarily an architectural specification (blueprint)
– Open, modular architecture
– Opening the road to certification

• “In-project” proof-of-concept implementation
– Pilot stage with 12 participating clinical sites

• “Post-project” exploitation trajectory
– Operational infrastructure
– Multiple private or shared instances



38 of 66

38

Architectural Principles
• Distributed Architecture
– Platform provides infrastructure and semantic services
• e.g. identity management, service registries, trial repository, terminology & vocabulary
services, etc.

– Platform provides central tools
• Typical users: trial sponsors
• e.g. protocol feasibility workbench, etc.
– Data sources reside at clinical sites
– Tools are provided for local usage
• Tools benefit from the EHR4CR data integration
• Typical users: local healthcare professionals
• e.g. patient recruitment

• Technically: a standards based Service Oriented Architecture
(SOA)


39 of 66

39

End-points (Recruitment & Feasibility )
• EHR4CR end-points at the clinical sites are crucial components
– Identifying patient information remains local on site
– EHR integration relies on shadow systems, Clinical Data Warehouses (CDWs)

Prot.
Feas.
Module
EHR4CR
CDW

ETL
EHR or
CDW
Data Source

Module
X

NLP
Data Access

EHR4CR End-point
EHR4CR End
Interfaces

Direct
Query
Interface

EHR4CR Data Source End-Point



Central tools &
services
(e.g. protocol feasibility
workbench)

Local tools &
services
(e.g. patient
recruitment
workbench)

40 of 66

40

Architectural Layers

ETL Services
I2B2 Connector
Message
Services


Semantic Query
Expansion &
Mediation
EHR4CR
CDW

AuthN & IDM
& IDM

Terminology Services

Trusted Third
Party (TTP)
Services

Infrastructure
Services

Trial
Execution
(EDC - CDMS)

AuthZ
AuthZ

Data Access
Services

Patient Recruitment
Workbenches
@ End-points

Audit

Semantic
Integration
Services

SAE Reporting

Platform Management
Service & Console
Service & Console

Protocol
Feasibility Query
End-points

Central Trial
Recruitment

Security &
Privacy
Services

Trial
Registry

Central
Protocol
Feasibility

+

Platform
Mgt
Services

Application Services & End-user Applications

Service
Registry


41 of 66

41

‘Converged’ Clinical Trial Support Platform

• Projects with similar goals, converging on platform architecture through the
same technical partner (Custodix)
• Platform aims to provide:
–
–
–
–

Connectivity
Security & privacy (compliance)
Infrastructure Management
Support for semantic integration, transparent to the technological implementation



42 of 66

42

EURECA
Semantic
Solution

…

Security & Privacy
Security & Privacy
Services

EHR4CR
Semantic
Solution

Platform Mgt
Services
rvices

Same technical platform,
different semantic integration
approaches (and applications)

Platform Convergence

Infrastructure Services

EHR4CR CDW

EURECA CDW

tranSMART
43 of 66

I2B2
43

… and beyond (pragmatic)

EURECA
Semantic
Solution

Model
Adaptors

Model
Adaptors

…

Security & Privacy
Security & Privacy
Services

EHR4CR
Semantic
Solution

Platform Mgt
Services
rvices

Pragmatic
approach
happening…


EHR4CR CDW

EURECA CDW

tranSMART
44 of 66

I2B2
44

… Long Term Convergence

EHR4CR
Semantic
Solution

EURECA
Semantic
Solution

…

Security
Security
Services

Platform Mgt
Services
rvices

Common Semantic Interface


EHR4CR CDW

EURECA CDW tranSMART

I2B2
45 of 66

45

Interoperable Ecosystem



46 of 66

Some Existing Pilot Applications…
Protocol Feasibility

Patient Screening

Cohort Selection

Trial Recruitment



47 of 66

Roadmaps
EHR4CR Roadmap towards project (scientific) success
(1)
Protocol Feasibility

(2)
Patient Recruitment

(3)
EDC – EHR Integration

(4)
Drug Safety Surveillance

Roadmap towards operational success
• Full automation should not be the goal (80-20 rule)
– Increase efficiency of humans in the existing processes
– Computer Aided Protocol Feasibility & Trial Recruitment, etc

• Incremental adoption through quick wins
– Example patient recruitment
• Step 1: Use the platform to optimize communication between sponsor & centers
(protocol exchange & updates , status reports, Q&A, provide dashboards, …)
• Step 2: Gradually introduce recruitment tools, connecting them to the same platform (for
retrieving eligibility criteria, reporting number of recruited patients, etc.)
– Similar for enriching the used information models



48 of 66

48

EHR4CR Business Model

A business model defines how an organisation
creates, delivers and captures VALUE



49 of 66

EHR4CR Outputs

Value Proposition
• The main reason why customers choose a product/service/provider
• It answers the question: “What’s in it for them?”
• A value proposition must be:
• Uniquely differentiating (perceived distinct benefits)
• Highly relevant to customers (addresses unmet needs)
• Substantiated with quantified value (versus current standards), e.g.
• Cost-benefit assessment (“Value for money”)
• Budgetary impact
A Value Proposition is Central to Any Business Model


50 of 66

EHR4CR Business model
The EHR4CR business model:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Specify in detail the product and service offering;
Include analyses and an impact analysis on multiple
stakeholders;
Deliver a self-sustaining economic model including
sensitivity analysis;
Define appropriate governance arrangements for the
platform services and for pan-European EHR4CR networks;
Define operating procedures and trusted third party service
requirements;
Identify the value proposition and incentives for each of the
key players and stakeholders impacted by EHR4CR;
Define accreditation and certification plans/programs for
EHR systems capable of interfacing with the platform;
Provide a framework to define public and private sector
roles in reusing EHRs for clinical research;
Define a roadmap for pan-European/global adoption and
for funding future developments.


51 of 66

Vision, Mission, Values



52 of 66

EHR4CR Outputs
Business Model Framework Uses Nine Building Blocks

Create
Value

Deliver
Value

Capture
Value

Source: ICTechnoloage 2013
Study on Business and Financing Models Related to ICT for Ageing Well
Adapted from Osterwalder & Pigneur 2010



53 of 66

Stakeholders

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Patients
Clinicians (in Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Care settings)
Clinical Investigators
Contract Research Organisations (CROs)
Pharmaceutical Industry
Hospital Administrators
Academia
EHR Systems Vendors
Trusted Third Parties (TTPs) and Trusted Services Providers
(TSPs)
10. Health Authorities
11. Health Care Planners
12. Regulators



54 of 66

Benefits by stakeholder segment
• Patient perspective
– Improved mechanisms for inclusion in clinical trials
– Faster access to innovative and safer treatments
• Academic perspective
– Increased efficiency of academic clinical studies
– Enabled multi-center protocol designs
• Pharmaceutical perspective
– Increased clinical trial efficiency
– Observational and outcomes research in real-world settings
• Healthcare perspective
– Enabling clinician participation in more clinical trials
– Adding an additional revenue stream.


55 of 66

Benefits (1)

• Patients: EHR-integrated research platforms will provide a secure environment
to share health data and thus for advancing clinical research
• Research Community: optimise research, processes and timelines
• Pharmaceutical Industry: maximize R&D value chain
• Contract Research Organisations: maximise value to customers and diversify
revenue streams
• Clinical investigators & Physicians: enable participation in a larger number of
clinical trials
• Regulatory Agencies: generate clinical evidence more rapidly for assisting
regulatory decision-making
• Public & Private Payers: enable further cost-effectiveness research



56 of 66

Benefits (2)

• Hospitals & healthcare organisations: enhance EHR data quality, management
reporting, performance benchmarking, image and revenues …
• Academic Centres: generate more research opportunities and funding
• ICT industry: open new business opportunities

In general: the reuse of EHR data for clinical research will optimise clinical
development towards achieving faster access to innovative medicines



57 of 66

Stakeholders and Forces in place
Who can influence? … the one who …

pays / invests ?

regulates ?

knows?
(other: e.g. the one who owns the data?…)



58 of 66

EHR4CR BMI and CBA

Business Model Innovation & Simulation
Forecasts the financial results for a EHR4CR service provider
• Based on estimated expenses and revenues
• Balance sheets (revenues minus expenses)
• Profitability ratio (revenues divided by expenses)

Cost-Benefit Assessment
Establishes the value of EHR4CR services versus current standards
• Estimated costs and benefits from the perspective of the primary payer



59 of 66

EHR4CR Outputs
Business Model Simulation Supports Financial Sustainability
• Uses the perspective of a service provider over a 5-year time horizon
• Pharmaceutical industry/CROs and clinical research units as primary customers
• Based on willingness to pay and current market value (EU market)
• Conservative assumptions generated by multidisciplinary expert task force
• “Monte Carlo” simulations (10,000 iterations across all distribution ranges) as robust
probabilistic sensitivity analysis

Estimated Average of 3.9M € (yr1) - 27.3M € (yr 5)

Estimated Average of 1.78 (yr1) - 6.3 (yr5)


60 of 66

EHR4CR Outputs
Business Model Simulation Market Assumptions
•

–

•

•

(applied to an estimated market penetration of 5-10%)
– Protocol Feasibility

5-yr Estimated # CT(Phase II-IV) in Europe
Est. 250-500pts /CT
5-yr EHR4CR Market Uptake: 5-10%
Est. # of Service Providers: 5-15

•
•

–

Per-pt cost/CT: ~10,000 €/pt

–

1.0-2.5% per-pt cost/CT/yr (fixed fee model)
Includes certification/accreditation margins


Yr 1-2: 3-7%
Yr 3-5: 7-20%

Patient Identification
•
•

EHR Data Access Cost
–
–

EHR4CR platform annual registration fee
EHR4CR fee per service (% per-pt cost/CT)
• Protocol feasibility: 2-4%
• Patient identification: 3-5%
• Study conduct: 5-10%
• SAE Reporting: 0.5%

Estimated SP Yearly Target Objectives

Estimated CT Costs
–

•

Tier I: PRO (Pharmaceutical Research)
Tier II: CRO (Contract Research Organisations)
Tier III: CRU (Clinical Research Units)

EU Market Landscape
–
–
–
–

•

5 years (incl. yearly estimates)

Customer Segments
–
–
–

•

EHR4CR Services
–
–

Service Provider

Time Horizon
–

•

•

Perspective

Yr 1-2: 15-30%
Yr 3-5: 30-60%

Study Conduct/SAE
•
•

Yr 1-2: 1-5%
Yr 3-5: 5-30%

61 of 66

EHR4CR Outputs
Cost-Benefit Assessment (CBA)
Objective: To establish the value of EHR4CR services compared to current practices
Perspective: Pharmaceutical industry (primary payer)
Focus: Oncology
State-of-the-art: Multidisciplinary expert panel (health economists, academia, pharma)
Methods:
- Advanced simulation modelling & health technology assessment best practices
- 20 models managing data variability (Monte-Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses)
Data Sources: Resource utilization assessment validated by 6 EFPIA partners
Monetary Benefits: Potential gains of actual development time saved with EHR4CR
Preliminary Results:
EHR4CR Annual Meeting

Benefits

BMI-Strategic Forum
November 18-21, 2013, Berlin

62



Costs

62 of 66

EHR review article



63 of 66

International Cooperation (1)

Promoting International Cooperation is one of the operational objectives of the
EC’s eHealth Action Plan 2012-2020, e.g.:

With WHO and OECD: data collections and benchmarking
With the US: building on the Memorandum of Understanding with the US on eHealth on
Interoperable eHealth systems and ICT skills in Health



64 of 66

International Cooperation (2)
TRANS ATLANTIC PROJECT

Foreword by Herman Van Rompuy- E. Council President
Memorandum of Understanding signed by:
• Neelie Kroes - Eur. Commission Vice-President
• Kathleen Sebelius – Secretary of HHS
Policy briefs for Transatlantic cooperation
• The current status of Certification of Electronic
Health Records in the US and Europe
• Semantic interoperability
• Modeling and simulation of human physiology and
diseases with a focus on the Virtual Physiological Human
• Policy Needs and Options for a Common Approach towards
Measuring Adoption, Usage and Benefits of eHealth
• eHealth Informatics Workforce challenges
Future TRANS ATLANTIC Cooperation? … on Reuse of Health data for Research…


65 of 66

Conclusions

• EHRs have a great potential to support clinical research
• There are a number of challenges to achieving this on a larger scale
• Advanced EHR-integrated platforms will provide truly innovative solutions
which promise to optimise clinical research



66 of 66

End

THANK YOU!
Prof. Dr. Georges J.E. De Moor
georges.demoor@ugent.be
http://www.eurorec.org
http://www.custodix.com
http://www.ehr4cr.eu



67 of 66

Evolution 2013: Prof. Dr. Georges De Moor, EuroRec on Liberating Health Data to accelerate High Quality Clinical Research

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Evolution 2013: Prof. Dr. Georges De Moor, EuroRec on Liberating Health Data to accelerate High Quality Clinical Research

Similar to Evolution 2013: Prof. Dr. Georges De Moor, EuroRec on Liberating Health Data to accelerate High Quality Clinical Research (20)

More from Life Sciences Network marcus evans

More from Life Sciences Network marcus evans (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Evolution 2013: Prof. Dr. Georges De Moor, EuroRec on Liberating Health Data to accelerate High Quality Clinical Research