@Christian_Reich, hoping you could help us here - I think @Chris_Knoll found a funny issue.
Take these NDCs:
00006000543
00006032540
00006032544
00006032582
00006032545
00006032546
00006032548
00006032550
00006032553
00006033504
00006033508
We are seeing these NDCs coming across in our data in 2006/2007.
None of these CONCEPT_CODES exist in our Vocabulary. But a couple years ago, someone gave a presentation to the OMOP/OHDSI community that said if you don’t get the 11-digit NDC, try for the 9-digit NDC. This logic is implemented in our CDM_BUILDER.
Our CDM builder is picking up these NDCs and translating them to the following. The only problem here is that SUVOREXANT didn’t start until 2014/2015.
000060005 (suvorexant 5mg/1 ORAL TABLET, FILM COATED [belsomra])
000060325 (suvorexant 15mg/1 ORAL TABLET, FILM COATED [belsomra])
000060335 (suvorexant 20mg/1 ORAL TABLET, FILM COATED [belsomra])
What is the best solution here?
- Should we be using the VALID_START_DATE/END_DATE now?
- Should we not be doing the try 9-digit when 11-digit doesn’t work logic?
- Or some other idea I don’t have . . .