Dataset Information

Validity of claims-based algorithms for selected cancers in Japan: Results from the VALIDATE-J study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Real-world data from large administrative claims databases in Japan have recently become available, but limited evidence exists to support their validity. VALIDATE-J validated claims-based algorithms for selected cancers in Japan.

Methods

VALIDATE-J was a multicenter, cross-sectional, retrospective study. Disease-identifying algorithms were used to identify cancers diagnosed between January or March 2012 and December 2016 using claims data from two hospitals in Japan. Positive predictive values (PPVs), specificity, and sensitivity were calculated for prevalent (regardless of baseline cancer-free period) and incident (12-month cancer-free period; with claims and registry periods in the same month) cases, using hospital cancer registry data as gold standard.

Results

22 108 cancers were identified in the hospital claims databases. PPVs (number of registry cases) for prevalent/incident cases were: any malignancy 79.0% (25 934)/73.1% (18 119); colorectal 84.4% (3519)/65.6% (2340); gastric 87.4% (3534)/76.8% (2279); lung 88.1% (2066)/79.9% (1636); breast 86.4% (4959)/59.9% (3185); pancreatic 87.1% (582)/80.4% (508); melanoma 48.7% (46)/42.9% (36); and lymphoma 83.6% (1457)/77.8% (1035). Specificity ranged from 98.3% to 100% (prevalent)/99.5% to 100% (incident); sensitivity ranged from 39.1% to 67.6% (prevalent)/12.5% to 31.4% (incident). PPVs of claims-based algorithms for several cancers in patients ≥66 years of age were slightly higher than those in a US Medicare population.

Conclusions

VALIDATE-J demonstrated high specificity and modest-to-moderate sensitivity for claims-based algorithms of most malignancies using Japanese claims data. Use of claims-based algorithms will enable identification of patient populations from claims databases, while avoiding direct patient identification. Further research is needed to confirm the generalizability of our results and applicability to specific subgroups of patient populations.

SUBMITTER: de Luise C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8453514 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAn administrative database covering a whole population such as the national database in Japan may be used to estimate the nationwide prevalence of diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when a well-validated definition of the disease is available. In Japan, the record linkage between the administrative database and medical charts in hospitals is strictly prohibited. A "hospital-based" validation study is one of few possible validation studies where claims kept inside the study hospital are rearranged into the database structure.MethodsWe selected random samples of 19,734 patients from approximately 1.6 million patients who received medical care between February 2018 and January 2019 in one of the 64 hospitals of the Tokushukai Medical Group. We excluded patients whose observation period was less than 365 days and identified 334 patients who met the definition of "possible cases of RA" whose medical charts were then independently evaluated by two rheumatologists. In a sensitivity analysis, we assessed bias due to misclassifying some patients with RA who did not meet the definition of "possible cases of RA" as a patient with no RA.ResultsThe kappa coefficient between the two rheumatologists was 0.80. The prevalence of RA in the study population was estimated to be 0.56%. We found that [condition code of RA] and ([any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] or [oral corticosteroid with no systemic autoimmune diseases (other than RA) and no polymyalgia rheumatica]) had a relatively high sensitivity (approximately 73%) and a high positive predictive value (approximately 80%). In a sensitivity analysis, we found that when some patients with RA who did not meet the definition of "possible cases of RA" were misclassified as a patient with no RA, then this would lead to underestimation of the prevalence of the definition-positive patients and the adjusted prevalence.ConclusionsWe recommend using the claims-based definition of RA (found in the current validation study) to estimate the prevalence of RA in Japan. We also suggest estimating the adjusted prevalence using the quantitative bias analysis method, since the prevalence of the disease in the "hospital-based" validation study is different from that in the administrative database.Trial registrationThe current study is not a clinical trial and hence not subject to trial registration.

Project description:Administrative claims studies do not adequately distinguish pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) from other forms of pulmonary hypertension (PH). Our aim is to develop and validate a set of algorithms using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes and electronic medical records (EMR), to identify patients with PAH. From January 2012 to August 2015, the EMRs of patients with ICD-9-CM codes for PH with an outpatient visit at the University of Texas Medical Branch were reviewed. Patients were divided into PAH or non-PAH groups according to EMR encounter diagnosis. Patient demographics, echocardiography, right heart catheterization (RHC) results, and PAH-specific therapies were assessed. RHC measurements were reviewed to categorize cases as hemodynamically determined PAH or not PAH. Weighted sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for the developed algorithms. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine how well the algorithms performed. External validation was performed at the University of Virginia Health System. The cohort for the development algorithms consisted of 683 patients with PH, PAH group (n?=?191) and non-PAH group (n?=?492). A hemodynamic diagnosis of PAH determined by RHC was recorded in the PAH (26%) and non-PAH (3%) groups. The positive predictive value for the algorithm that included ICD-9-CM and PAH-specific medications was 66.9% and sensitivity was 28.2% with a c-statistic of 0.66. The positive predictive value for the EMR-based algorithm that included ICD-9-CM, EMR encounter diagnosis, echocardiography, RHC, and PAH-specific medication was 69.4% and a c-statistic of 0.87. A validation cohort of 177 patients with PH examined from August 2015 to August 2016 using EMR-based algorithms yielded a similar positive predictive value of 62.5%. In conclusion, claims-based algorithms that included ICD-9-CM codes, EMR encounter diagnosis, echocardiography, RHC, and PAH-specific medications better-identified patients with PAH than ICD-9-CM codes alone.

Project description:In many types of surgery, obesity may influence patient selection, prognosis, and/or management. Quantifying the accuracy of the coding of obesity and other prognostic factors is important for the design and interpretation of studies of surgical outcomes based on administrative healthcare data. This study assessed the validity of obesity diagnoses recorded in insurance claims data in selected surgical populations.This was a retrospective, observational study. Deidentified electronic health record (EHR) and linked administrative claims data were obtained for US patients age ?20 years who underwent a qualifying surgical procedure (bariatric surgery, total knee arthroplasty [TKA], cardiac ablation, or hernia repair) in 2014Q1-2017Q1 (first?=?index). Patients' body mass index (BMI) as coded in the claims data (error-prone measure) during the index procedure or 180d pre-index was compared with their measured BMI as recorded in the EHR (criterion standard) to estimate the sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of obesity diagnosis codes.Among patients who underwent bariatric surgery (N?=?1422), TKA (N?=?8670), cardiac ablation (N?=?167), or hernia repair (N?=?5450), obesity was present in 98%, 63%, 52%, and 54%, respectively, based on measured BMI. PPVs of obesity diagnosis codes were high: 99.3%, 96.0%, 92.8%, and 94.1% in bariatric surgery, TKA, cardiac ablation, and hernia repair, respectively. The sensitivity of obesity diagnoses was: 99.8%, 46.2%, 41.3%, and 42.3% in bariatric surgery, TKA, cardiac ablation, and hernia repair, respectively. Among false-positive patients diagnosed as obese but with measured BMI <30, the proportion with a BMI ?28 was 40.0%, 67.6%, 60.7%, and 65.8% for bariatric surgery, TKA, cardiac ablation, and hernia repair, respectively.Our data indicate that obesity is highly prevalent in many surgical populations, obesity diagnosis codes have high PPVs, but also obesity is generally undercoded in claims data. Quantifying the validity of diagnosis codes for obesity and other important prognostic factors is important for the design and interpretation of studies of surgical outcomes based on administrative data. Further research is needed to determine the extent to which undercoding of BMI and obesity can be addressed through the use of proxies that may be better documented in claims data.

Project description:Databases of medical claims can be valuable resources for cardiovascular research, such as comparative effectiveness and pharmacovigilance studies of cardiovascular medications. However, claims data do not include all of the factors used for risk stratification in clinical care. We sought to develop claims-based algorithms to identify individuals at high estimated risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) events, and to identify uncontrolled low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol among statin users at high risk for CHD events.We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 6,615 participants ?66 years old using data from the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study baseline visit in 2003-2007 linked to Medicare claims data. Using REGARDS data we defined high risk for CHD events as having a history of CHD, at least 1 risk equivalent, or Framingham CHD risk score >20%. Among statin users at high risk for CHD events we defined uncontrolled LDL cholesterol as LDL cholesterol ?100 mg/dL. Using Medicare claims-based variables for diagnoses, procedures, and healthcare utilization, we developed algorithms for high CHD event risk and uncontrolled LDL cholesterol.REGARDS data indicated that 49% of participants were at high risk for CHD events. A claims-based algorithm identified high risk for CHD events with a positive predictive value of 87% (95% CI: 85%, 88%), sensitivity of 69% (95% CI: 67%, 70%), and specificity of 90% (95% CI: 89%, 91%). Among statin users at high risk for CHD events, 30% had LDL cholesterol ?100 mg/dL. A claims-based algorithm identified LDL cholesterol ?100 mg/dL with a positive predictive value of 43% (95% CI: 38%, 49%), sensitivity of 19% (95% CI: 15%, 22%), and specificity of 89% (95% CI: 86%, 90%).Although the sensitivity was low, the high positive predictive value of our algorithm for high risk for CHD events supports the use of claims to identify Medicare beneficiaries at high risk for CHD events.