VALIDATING PRIMARY AND SECONDARY HEALTHCARE RESOURCE USE AND COSTS ESTIMATES IN OMOP-MAPPED VS SOURCE CPRD-HES DATA IN THE UK
Author(s)
Gianluca Fabiano, PhD1, Njoki Njuki, Bachelor of Science1, Antonella Delmestri, PhD1, Rafael Pinedo-Villanueva, BA, MSc, PhD2;
1University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2University of Oxford, Associate Professor, Oxford, United Kingdom
1University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2University of Oxford, Associate Professor, Oxford, United Kingdom
OBJECTIVES: To validate estimates of primary and secondary healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs derived from OMOP-mapped CPRD Aurum data linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) vis-á-vis those generated using the source data for a cohort of postmenopausal women with fragility fractures.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study (2010-2018) of women >50 years with a first fragility fracture. HCRU and costs were estimated for up to two years post-index fracture using OMOP-mapped and source CPRD-HES data. Primary care costs were estimated using healthcare professional specialty unit costs; inpatient and outpatient costs using Healthcare Resource Groups and NHS unit costs. The OMOP-based analysis was built on variables reporting standardised OMOP concepts; supplementary analyses incorporated source variables retained within OMOP. HCRU and cost differences were summarised using means and bootstrap confidence intervals.
RESULTS: The OMOP-mapped cohort included 22,900 women (mean follow-up 578 days) and the source CPRD-HES cohort 23,106 (577 days), with ≥1 primary care encounters in 97.3% and 97.4%, respectively. Mean number of encounters was 39.0 in OMOP and 38.3 in source, with mean costs of £1,112.8 and £1,087.1, respectively. Hospitalisations were observed for 52.4% in OMOP and 52.3% in source, with a mean of 1.16 per woman in both datasets. Hospital costs using standardized OMOP variables were 35.1% lower than in source (£2,451.7 vs £3,777.3). Using retained source-specific variables, the difference reduced to 4.7% (£3,599.6 vs £3,777.3). Outpatient appointments were recorded for 89.6% of women with mean 7.28 visits (£1,183.9) in OMOP and 7.27 (£1,199.1) in source. Emergency care was recorded for 67% of women in both cohorts, with a mean 1.26 encounters (£351.8) in OMOP and 1.25 (£447.6) in source.
CONCLUSIONS: OMOP-mapped data produced HCRU and cost estimates largely equivalent to those derived from CPRD-HES. Leveraging OMOP-retained source variables and refining specialty vocabularies and mappings would improve the alignment.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study (2010-2018) of women >50 years with a first fragility fracture. HCRU and costs were estimated for up to two years post-index fracture using OMOP-mapped and source CPRD-HES data. Primary care costs were estimated using healthcare professional specialty unit costs; inpatient and outpatient costs using Healthcare Resource Groups and NHS unit costs. The OMOP-based analysis was built on variables reporting standardised OMOP concepts; supplementary analyses incorporated source variables retained within OMOP. HCRU and cost differences were summarised using means and bootstrap confidence intervals.
RESULTS: The OMOP-mapped cohort included 22,900 women (mean follow-up 578 days) and the source CPRD-HES cohort 23,106 (577 days), with ≥1 primary care encounters in 97.3% and 97.4%, respectively. Mean number of encounters was 39.0 in OMOP and 38.3 in source, with mean costs of £1,112.8 and £1,087.1, respectively. Hospitalisations were observed for 52.4% in OMOP and 52.3% in source, with a mean of 1.16 per woman in both datasets. Hospital costs using standardized OMOP variables were 35.1% lower than in source (£2,451.7 vs £3,777.3). Using retained source-specific variables, the difference reduced to 4.7% (£3,599.6 vs £3,777.3). Outpatient appointments were recorded for 89.6% of women with mean 7.28 visits (£1,183.9) in OMOP and 7.27 (£1,199.1) in source. Emergency care was recorded for 67% of women in both cohorts, with a mean 1.26 encounters (£351.8) in OMOP and 1.25 (£447.6) in source.
CONCLUSIONS: OMOP-mapped data produced HCRU and cost estimates largely equivalent to those derived from CPRD-HES. Leveraging OMOP-retained source variables and refining specialty vocabularies and mappings would improve the alignment.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
RWD151
Topic
Real World Data & Information Systems
Topic Subcategory
Distributed Data & Research Networks
Disease
SDC: Musculoskeletal Disorders (Arthritis, Bone Disorders, Osteoporosis, Other Musculoskeletal)