Use of the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) for respiratory epidemiology: a comparison with the 4th Morbidity Survey in General Practice (MSGP4)

Abstract

Background-The General Practice Research Database (GPRD) covers over 6% of the population of England and Wales and holds data on diagnoses and prescribing from 1987 onwards. Most previous studies using the GPRD have concentrated on drug use and safety. A study was undertaken to assess the validity of using the GPRD for epidemiological research into respiratory diseases. Methods-Age-specific and sex-specific rates derived from the GPRD for 11 respiratory conditions were compared with patient consultation rates from the 4th Morbidity Survey in General Practice (MSGP4). Within the GPRD comparisons were made between patient diagnosis rates, patient prescription rates, and patient "prescription plus relevant diagnosis" rates for selected treatments. Results-There was good agreement between consultation rates in the MSGP4 and diagnosis or "prescription plus diagnosis" from the GPRD in terms of pattern and magnitude, except for "acute bronchitis or bronchiolitis" where the best comparison was the combination category of "chest infection" and/or "acute bronchitis or bronchiolitis". Within the GPRD, patient prescription rates for inhalers, tuberculosis or hayfever therapy showed little similarity with diagnosis only rates but a similarity was seen with the combination of "prescription plus diagnosis" which may be a better reflection of morbidity than diagnosis alone. Conclusions-The GPRD appears to be valid for primary care epidemiological studies by comparison with MSGP4 and oVers advantages in terms of large size, a longer time period covered, and ability to link prescriptions with diagnoses. However, careful interpretation is needed because not all consultations are recorded and the coding system used contains terms which do not directly map to ICD codes.

Recent trends in lung cancer and its association with COPD: an analysis using the UK GP Research Database

“…Nevertheless, both lung cancer and COPD have been previously studied in the GPRD and the findings reported. [13][14][15][16][18][19][20][21] Indeed, the higher risk of lung cancer we found among those with COPD aged 65 or older has also been reported elsewhere. 29 In a large, recent study, Wilson et al, 31 using CT scan together with spirometry to search for emphysema and lung cancer in 3,638 smokers, were intrigued to find absence of a doseresponse relationship between smoking intensity and lung cancer among those with moderate to severe emphysema -a finding which has led to the hypothesis that COPD patients may have some host or susceptibility factors that protect them from developing cancer in general (having taken 30 or more years of exposure to tobacco to develop COPD), whereas in those who are more susceptible to developing cancer, lung cancer is likely to be diagnosed before COPD.…”

“…[15][16] The aim of our study was to describe the relationship between lung cancer and COPD in the UK primary care setting. We aimed to determine the trends in annual incidence of lung cancer in individuals already diagnosed with COPD and in those from the general population over a 15-year period in the GPRD.…”

Infections in early life and childhood leukaemia risk: a UK case–control study of general practitioner records

“…Medical conditions are coded with a modification of the Oxford Medical Information System (OXMIS) classification and READ codes (Kinn et al, 1995). The diagnostic and prescription data recorded in the GPRD has been validated by several studies (Walley and Mantgani, 1997;Hansell et al, 1999). Ethical approval for all observational research using GPRD data has been obtained from a Multicentre Research Ethics Committee (MREC).…”

Reuse Of Clinical Data

“…In contrast to registries, aggregations of clinical data from EHRs such as the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) [11] in the United Kingdom are less well structured, but are close to real-time. Clinical data are messy and often incomplete or at least irregular.…”

“…Cohort analysis has been used to determine risk for readmission to the hospital within 30 days from discharge [8]; predict death and length of stay based upon abnormal laboratory values [9]; describe populations of patients [10,11]; assist in infection control [12][13][14][15][16][17][18]; and discover pharmaco-epidemiological relationships [19,20].…”