Sanjay Jayasinghe1, Kristine Macartney. 1. National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, and Discipline of Paediatrics and Child Health, The University of Sydney, Australia. sanjay.jayasinghe@health.nsw.gov.au
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hospital discharge records and laboratory data have shown a substantial early impact from the rotavirus vaccination program that commenced in 2007 in Australia. However, these assessments are affected by the validity and reliability of hospital discharge coding and stool testing to measure the true incidence of hospitalised disease. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of these data sources for disease estimation, both before and after, vaccine introduction. METHODS: All hospitalisations at a major paediatric centre in children aged <5 years from 2000 to 2009 containing acute gastroenteritis (AGE) ICD 10 AM diagnosis codes were linked to hospital laboratory stool testing data. The validity of the rotavirus-specific diagnosis code (A08.0) and the incidence of hospitalisations attributable to rotavirus by both direct estimation and with adjustments for non-testing and miscoding were calculated for pre- and post-vaccination periods. RESULTS: A laboratory record of stool testing was available for 36% of all AGE hospitalisations (n=4948) the rotavirus code had high specificity (98.4%; 95% CI, 97.5-99.1%) and positive predictive value (96.8%; 94.8-98.3%), and modest sensitivity (61.6%; 58-65.1%). Of all rotavirus test positive hospitalisations only a third had a rotavirus code. The estimated annual average number of rotavirus hospitalisations, following adjustment for non-testing and miscoding was 5- and 6-fold higher than identified, respectively, from testing and coding alone. Direct and adjusted estimates yielded similar percentage reductions in annual average rotavirus hospitalisations of over 65%. CONCLUSION: Due to the limited use of stool testing and poor sensitivity of the rotavirus-specific diagnosis code routine hospital discharge and laboratory data substantially underestimate the true incidence of rotavirus hospitalisations and absolute vaccine impact. However, this data can still be used to monitor vaccine impact as the effects of miscoding and under-testing appear to be comparable between pre and post vaccination periods.
INTRODUCTION: Hospital discharge records and laboratory data have shown a substantial early impact from the rotavirus vaccination program that commenced in 2007 in Australia. However, these assessments are affected by the validity and reliability of hospital discharge coding and stool testing to measure the true incidence of hospitalised disease. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of these data sources for disease estimation, both before and after, vaccine introduction. METHODS: All hospitalisations at a major paediatric centre in children aged <5 years from 2000 to 2009 containing acute gastroenteritis (AGE) ICD 10 AM diagnosis codes were linked to hospital laboratory stool testing data. The validity of the rotavirus-specific diagnosis code (A08.0) and the incidence of hospitalisations attributable to rotavirus by both direct estimation and with adjustments for non-testing and miscoding were calculated for pre- and post-vaccination periods. RESULTS: A laboratory record of stool testing was available for 36% of all AGE hospitalisations (n=4948) the rotavirus code had high specificity (98.4%; 95% CI, 97.5-99.1%) and positive predictive value (96.8%; 94.8-98.3%), and modest sensitivity (61.6%; 58-65.1%). Of all rotavirus test positive hospitalisations only a third had a rotavirus code. The estimated annual average number of rotavirus hospitalisations, following adjustment for non-testing and miscoding was 5- and 6-fold higher than identified, respectively, from testing and coding alone. Direct and adjusted estimates yielded similar percentage reductions in annual average rotavirus hospitalisations of over 65%. CONCLUSION: Due to the limited use of stool testing and poor sensitivity of the rotavirus-specific diagnosis code routine hospital discharge and laboratory data substantially underestimate the true incidence of rotavirus hospitalisations and absolute vaccine impact. However, this data can still be used to monitor vaccine impact as the effects of miscoding and under-testing appear to be comparable between pre and post vaccination periods.
Authors: John Coveney; Michael Barrett; Patrick Fitzpatrick; Nandini Kandamany; Roisin Mcnamara; Stanley Koe; Ikechukwu Okafor Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: Sarah E Wilson; Laura C Rosella; Jun Wang; Nicole Le Saux; Natasha S Crowcroft; Tara Harris; Shelly Bolotin; Shelley L Deeks Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Parveen Fathima; Mark A Jones; Hannah C Moore; Christopher C Blyth; Robyn A Gibbs; Thomas L Snelling Journal: J Epidemiol Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 3.211
Authors: Susanne Hartwig; Matti Uhari; Marjo Renko; Perrine Bertet; Maria Hemming; Timo Vesikari Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Marieke L A de Hoog; Timo Vesikari; Carlo Giaquinto; Hans-Iko Huppertz; Federico Martinon-Torres; Patricia Bruijning-Verhagen Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 3.452