23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Use of electronic medical records and biomarkers to manage risk and resource efficiencies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          The migration from paper to electronic medical records (EMRs) was motivated by the administrative need to record, retrieve and process increasing amounts of clinical data in the 1980s. In the intervening period, there has been growing recognition of the potential of such records for achieving care efficiencies, informing clinical decision making and real-life research. EMRs can be used to characterise patient groups, management approaches and differential outcomes. Characterisation can also help with identification of potential biomarkers for future risk determination and likely treatment response. The future heralds even greater opportunities through integration of clinical records and a range of technology-based solutions within a more complete electronic health record (EHR). Through application of algorithms based on identified risk predictors and disease determinants, clinical records could also be used to enable risk stratification of patients to optimise targeted interventions, conserving resources to achieve individual patient and system-wide benefit. In this review, we reflect on the evolution of the EMR and EHR and discuss current and emerging opportunities, particularly with respect to biomarkers and targeting of innovative biologic interventions. We also consider some of the critical issues associated with realising the potential of the EHR as a clinical aid and research tool in an age of emerging technologies.​​​​

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Mepolizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma (DREAM): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

          Some patients with severe asthma have recurrent asthma exacerbations associated with eosinophilic airway inflammation. Early studies suggest that inhibition of eosinophilic airway inflammation with mepolizumab-a monoclonal antibody against interleukin 5-is associated with a reduced risk of exacerbations. We aimed to establish efficacy, safety, and patient characteristics associated with the response to mepolizumab. We undertook a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 81 centres in 13 countries between Nov 9, 2009, and Dec 5, 2011. Eligible patients were aged 12-74 years, had a history of recurrent severe asthma exacerbations, and had signs of eosinophilic inflammation. They were randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1:1 ratio) to receive one of three doses of intravenous mepolizumab (75 mg, 250 mg, or 750 mg) or matched placebo (100 mL 0·9% NaCl) with a central telephone-based system and computer-generated randomly permuted block schedule stratified by whether treatment with oral corticosteroids was required. Patients received 13 infusions at 4-week intervals. The primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations, which were defined as validated episodes of acute asthma requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, admission, or a visit to an emergency department. Patients, clinicians, and data analysts were masked to treatment assignment. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01000506. 621 patients were randomised: 159 were assigned to placebo, 154 to 75 mg mepolizumab, 152 to 250 mg mepolizumab, and 156 to 750 mg mepolizumab. 776 exacerbations were deemed to be clinically significant. The rate of clinically significant exacerbations was 2·40 per patient per year in the placebo group, 1·24 in the 75 mg mepolizumab group (48% reduction, 95% CI 31-61%; p<0·0001), 1·46 in the 250 mg mepolizumab group (39% reduction, 19-54%; p=0·0005), and 1·15 in the 750 mg mepolizumab group (52% reduction, 36-64%; p<0·0001). Three patients died during the study, but the deaths were not deemed to be related to treatment. Mepolizumab is an effective and well tolerated treatment that reduces the risk of asthma exacerbations in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. GlaxoSmithKline. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Benefits of omalizumab as add-on therapy in patients with severe persistent asthma who are inadequately controlled despite best available therapy (GINA 2002 step 4 treatment): INNOVATE.

            Patients with severe persistent asthma who are inadequately controlled despite Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2002 step 4 therapy are a challenging population with significant unmet medical need. We determined the effect of omalizumab on clinically significant asthma exacerbations (requiring systemic corticosteroids) in the first omalizumab study to exclusively enrol patients from this difficult-to-treat patient population. Following a run-in phase, patients (12-75 years) inadequately controlled despite therapy with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) with reduced lung function and a recent history of clinically significant exacerbations were randomized to receive omalizumab or placebo for 28 weeks in a double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study. A total of 419 patients were included in the efficacy analyses. The clinically significant asthma exacerbation rate (primary efficacy variable), adjusted for an observed relevant imbalance in history of clinically significant asthma exacerbations, was 0.68 with omalizumab and 0.91 with placebo (26% reduction) during the 28-week treatment phase (P = 0.042). Without adjustment, a similar magnitude of effect was seen (19% reduction), but this did not reach statistical significance. Omalizumab significantly reduced severe asthma exacerbation rate (0.24 vs 0.48, P = 0.002) and emergency visit rate (0.24 vs 0.43, P = 0.038). Omalizumab significantly improved asthma-related quality of life, morning peak expiratory flow and asthma symptom scores. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. In patients with inadequately controlled severe persistent asthma, despite high-dose ICS and LABA therapy, and often additional therapy, omalizumab significantly reduced the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations, severe exacerbations and emergency visits. Omalizumab is effective and should be considered as add-on therapy for patients with inadequately controlled severe persistent asthma who have a significant unmet need despite best available therapy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Blood eosinophil count and prospective annual asthma disease burden: a UK cohort study

              Elevated sputum eosinophil counts predict asthma exacerbations and responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids but are impractical to measure in primary care. We investigated the relation between blood eosinophil count and prospective annual asthma outcomes for a large UK cohort.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur Clin Respir J
                Eur Clin Respir J
                ZECR
                zecr20
                European Clinical Respiratory Journal
                Taylor & Francis
                2001-8525
                2017
                14 March 2017
                : 4
                : 1
                : 1293386
                Affiliations
                [ a ]Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh, UK
                [ b ]Respiratory Effectiveness Group , Cambridge, UK
                [ c ]Centre for Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen , Aberdeen, UK
                [ d ]Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute , Singapore​​​​
                [ e ]Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, and Respiratory Medicine, Royal Liverpool Hospital , Liverpool, UK
                [ f ]Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton , Southampton, UK
                [ g ]Department of Public Health and Caring Science, Family Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Uppsala University , Uppsala, Sweden
                [ h ]Department of General Practice and Research Institute for Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen , Groningen, the Netherlands
                Author notes
                Article
                1293386
                10.1080/20018525.2017.1293386
                5404653
                72e10b24-7e27-4c71-b0af-c249cf516cab
                © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 15 December 2016
                : 17 January 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 7, Tables: 1, References: 72, Pages: 13
                Categories
                Article
                Article

                electronic medical record (emr),electronic health record (ehr),database,asthma,biomarker,primary care​​​​,cdss, big data

                Comments

                Comment on this article