Healthc Inform Res.  2025 Jan;31(1):4-15. 10.4258/hir.2025.31.1.4.

Utility of Treatment Pattern Analysis Using a Common Data Model: A Scoping Review

• Park EG
• Kim MJ
• Kim J
• Shin K
• Ryu B

• KMID: 2564347
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2025.31.1.4

Abstract

Objectives
We aimed to derive observational research evidence on treatment patterns through a scoping review of common data model (CDM)-based publications.
Methods
We searched the medical literature databases PubMed and EMBASE, as well as the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) website, for papers published between January 1, 2010 and August 21, 2023 to identify research papers relevant to our topic.
Results
Eighteen articles satisfied the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. We summarized study characteristics such as phenotypes, patient numbers, data periods, countries, Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) CDM databases, and definitions of index date and target cohort. Type 2 diabetes mellitus emerged as the most frequently studied disease, covered in five articles, followed by hypertension and depression, each addressed in four articles. Biguanides, with metformin as the primary drug, were the most commonly prescribed first-line treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Most studies utilized sunburst plots to visualize treatment patterns, whereas two studies used Sankey plots. Various software tools were employed for treatment pattern analysis, including JavaScript, the open-source ATLAS by OHDSI, R code, and the R package “TreatmentPatterns.”
Conclusions
This study provides a comprehensive overview of research on treatment patterns using the CDM, highlighting the growing importance of OMOP CDM in enabling multinational observational network studies and advancing collaborative research in this field.

Keyword

Epidemiologic Methods, Cohort Studies, Drug Utilization, Scoping Review, Common Data Elements

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow chart diagram. CDM: common data model, OMOP: Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership.

• 

  Figure 2 Distribution of articles by target diseases.

• 

  Figure 3 Drug classes for type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and depression in the articles. (A) Type 2 diabetes mellitus. (B) Hypertension. (C) Depression. DPP-4: dipeptidyl peptidase 4, GLP-1: glucagon-like peptide-1, SGLT2: sodium-glucose co-transporter-2, ACE: angiotensin-converting enzyme, ARBs: angiotensin receptor blockers, CCBs: calcium channel blockers, NDRIs: norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitors, SSRIs: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, SARIs: serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitors, SNRIs: serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, TeCAs: tetracyclic antidepressants, TCAs: tricyclic antidepressants.

Reference

References

1. Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics. The book of OHDSI [Internet]. New York (NY): Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics;2021. [cited at 2024 Jan 9]. Available from: https://ohdsi.github.io/TheBookOfOhdsi/OhdsiCommunity.html.

2. Sentinel Sentinel Common Data Model [Internet]. Silver Springer (MD): Sentinel Initiative;2024. [cited at 2024 Jan 9]. Available from: https://www.sentinelinitiative.org/sentinel/data/distributed-database-common-data-model.

3. PCORnet. PCORnet Common Data Model (CDM) [Internet]. Washington (DC): Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI);2024. [cited at 2024 Jan 9]. Available from: https://pcornet.org/news/resources-pcornet-common-data-model/.

4. Stang PE, Ryan PB, Racoosin JA, Overhage JM, Hartzema AG, Reich C, et al. Advancing the science for active surveillance: rationale and design for the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership. Ann Intern Med. 2010; 153(9):600–6. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-153-9-201011020-00010.

5. Overhage JM, Ryan PB, Reich CG, Hartzema AG, Stang PE. Validation of a common data model for active safety surveillance research. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012; 19(1):54–60. https://doi.org/10.1136/amia-jnl-2011-000376.

6. Yoon D, Ahn EK, Park MY, Cho SY, Ryan P, Schuemie MJ, et al. Conversion and data quality assessment of electronic health record data at a Korean tertiary teaching hospital to a common data model for distributed network research. Healthc Inform Res. 2016; 22(1):54–8. https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2016.22.1.54.

7. Choi IY. Present and future of utilizing healthcare data. Healthc Inform Res. 2023; 29(1):1–3. https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2023.29.1.1.

8. Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics. About OHDSI [Internet]. New York (NY): Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics;c2024. [cited at 2024 Jan 9]. Available from: https://www.ohdsi.org/.

9. Hripcsak G, Ryan PB, Duke JD, Shah NH, Park RW, Huser V, et al. Characterizing treatment pathways at scale using the OHDSI network. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016; 113(27):7329–36. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510502113.

10. Markus AF, Verhamme KM, Kors JA, Rijnbeek PR. TreatmentPatterns: an R package to facilitate the standardized development and analysis of treatment patterns across disease domains. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2022; 225:107081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2022.107081.

11. Thomas A, Lubarsky S, Durning SJ, Young ME. Knowledge syntheses in medical education: demystifying scoping reviews. Acad Med. 2017; 92(2):161–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001452.

12. Maggio LA, Larsen K, Thomas A, Costello JA, Artino AR Jr. Scoping reviews in medical education: a scoping review. Med Educ. 2021; 55(6):689–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14431.

13. Peters MD, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020; 18(10):2119–26. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167.

14. Kastner M, Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Lillie E, Perrier L, Horsley T, et al. What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review?: protocol for a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12:114. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-114.

15. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016; 16:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4.

16. Reinecke I, Zoch M, Reich C, Sedlmayr M, Bathelt F. The usage of OHDSI OMOP: a scoping review. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2021; 283:95–103. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI210546.

17. Ahmadi N, Zoch M, Kelbert P, Noll R, Schaaf J, Wolfien M, et al. Methods used in the development of common data models for health data: scoping review. JMIR Med Inform. 2023; 11:e45116. https://doi.org/10.2196/45116.

18. Lee A, Yuan Y, Eccles L, Chitkara A, Dalen J, Varol N. Treatment patterns for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the US: a systematic review of observational studies. Cancer Treat Res Commun. 2022; 33:100648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctarc.2022.100648.

19. Martin A, Bessonova L, Hughes R, Doane MJ, O’Sullivan AK, Snook K, et al. Systematic review of real-world treatment patterns of oral antipsychotics and associated economic burden in patients with schizophrenia in the United States. Adv Ther. 2022; 39(9):3933–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-022-02232-z.

20. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(7):467–73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850.

21. Zhang X, Wang L, Miao S, Xu H, Yin Y, Zhu Y, et al. Analysis of treatment pathways for three chronic diseases using OMOP CDM. J Med Syst. 2018; 42(12):260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-018-1076-5.

22. Chen R, Ryan P, Natarajan K, Falconer T, Crew KD, Reich CG, et al. Treatment patterns for chronic comorbid conditions in patients with cancer using a large-scale observational data network. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2020; 4:171–83. https://doi.org/10.1200/CCI.19.00107.

23. Kern DM, Cepeda MS, Defalco F, Etropolski M. Treatment patterns and sequences of pharmacotherapy for patients diagnosed with depression in the United States: 2014 through 2019. BMC Psychiatry. 2020; 20(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2418-7.

24. Kern DM, Cepeda MS. Treatment patterns and comorbid burden of patients newly diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in the United States. BMC Neurol. 2020; 20(1):296. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-020-01882-2.

25. Kim H, Yoo S, Jeon Y, Yi S, Kim S, Choi SA, et al. Characterization of anti-seizure medication treatment pathways in pediatric epilepsy using the electronic health record-based common data model. Front Neurol. 2020; 11:409. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2020.00409.

26. Han S, Son M, Choi B, Park C, Shin DH, Jung JH, et al. Characterization of medication trends for chronic kidney disease: mineral and bone disorder treatment using electronic health record-based common data model. Biomed Res Int. 2021; 2021:5504873. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5504873.

27. Jeon H, You SC, Kang SY, Seo SI, Warner JL, Belenkaya R, et al. Characterizing the anticancer treatment trajectory and pattern in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer using harmonized observational databases: retrospective study. JMIR Med Inform. 2021; 9(4):e25035. https://doi.org/10.2196/25035.

28. Lee KA, Jin HY, Kim YJ, Im YJ, Kim EY, Park TS. Treatment patterns of type 2 diabetes assessed using a common data model based on electronic health records of 2000–2019. J Korean Med Sci. 2021; 36(36):e230. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e230.

29. Sathappan SM, Jeon YS, Dang TK, Lim SC, Shao YM, Tai ES, et al. Transformation of electronic health records and questionnaire data to OMOP CDM: a feasibility study using SG_T2DM dataset. Appl Clin Inform. 2021; 12(4):757–67. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1732301.

30. Byun J, Lee DY, Jeong CW, Kim Y, Rhee HY, Moon KW, et al. Analysis of treatment pattern of anti-dementia medications in newly diagnosed Alzheimer’s dementia using OMOP CDM. Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):4451. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08595-1.

31. Chung TK, Jeon Y, Hong Y, Hong S, Moon JS, Lee H. Factors affecting the changes in antihypertensive medications in patients with hypertension. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022; 9:999548. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.999548.

32. Mun Y, Park C, Lee DY, Kim TM, Jin KW, Kim S, et al. Real-world treatment intensities and pathways of macular edema following retinal vein occlusion in Korea from Common Data Model in ophthalmology. Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):10162. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14386-5.

33. Seo SI, Kim TJ, Choi YJ, Bang CS, Lee YK, Lee MW, et al. Clinical characteristics and treatment pathway of patients treated with Helicobacter pylori infection: a single center cohort study using common data model. Korean J Helicobacter Up Gastrointest Res. 2022; 22(3):214–21. https://doi.org/10.7704/kjhugr.2022.0010.

34. Spotnitz M, Ostropolets A, Castano VG, Natarajan K, Waldman GJ, Argenziano M, et al. Patient characteristics and antiseizure medication pathways in newly diagnosed epilepsy: feasibility and pilot results using the common data model in a single-center electronic medical record database. Epilepsy Behav. 2022; 129:108630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yebeh.2022.108630.

35. Vora P, Morgan Stewart H, Russell B, Asiimwe A, Brobert G. Time trends and treatment pathways in prescribing individual oral anticoagulants in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: an observational study of more than three million patients from Europe and the United States. Int J Clin Pract. 2022; 2022:6707985. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6707985.

36. Bui MH, Lee DY, Park SJ, Park KH. Real-world treatment intensity and patterns in patients with myopic choroidal neovascularization: common data model in ophthalmology. J Korean Med Sci. 2023; 38(23):e174. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e174.

37. Choi JH, Lee KA, Moon JH, Chon S, Kim DJ, Kim HJ, et al. 2023 Clinical practice guidelines for diabetes mellitus of the Korean Diabetes Association. Diabetes Metab J. 2023; 47(5):575–94. https://doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2023.0282.

38. American Diabetes Association. Standards of care in diabetes–2023. Diabetes Care. 2023. 46(Suppl 1):S1–S291. https://diabetesjournals.org/care/issue/46/Supplement_1.

39. Lee HY, Shin J, Kim GH, Park S, Ihm SH, Kim HC, et al. 2018 Korean Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the management of hypertension: part II-diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. Clin Hypertens. 2019; 25:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40885-019-0124-x.

40. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Depression in adults: treatment and management [Internet]. Manchester, UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence;2022. [cited at 2024 Jan 9]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng222.

41. Seo JS, Bahk WM, Woo YS, Park YM, Kim W, Jeong JH, et al. Korean medication algorithm for depressive disorder 2021, fourth revision: an executive summary. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2021; 19(4):751–72. https://doi.org/10.9758/cpn.2021.19.4.751.

42. Lee GH, Park J, Kim J, Kim Y, Choi B, Park RW, et al. Feasibility study of federated learning on the distributed research network of OMOP common data model. Healthc Inform Res. 2023; 29(2):168–73. https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2023.29.2.168.