Aaron J Katz1, Patrick B Ryan, Judith A Racoosin, Paul E Stang. 1. UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Division of Pharmaceutical Policy and Outcomes, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. aj_katz@unc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Determining the aetiology of acute liver injury (ALI) may be challenging to both clinicians and researchers. Observational research is particularly useful in studying rare medical outcomes such as ALI; however, case definitions for ALI in previous observational studies lack consistency and sensitivity. ALI is a clinically important condition with various aetiologies, including drug exposure. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate four distinct case definitions for ALI across a diverse set of large observational databases, providing a better understanding of ALI prevalence and natural history. DATA SOURCES: Seven healthcare databases: GE Healthcare, MarketScan(®) Lab Database, Humana Inc., Partners HealthCare System, Regenstrief Institute, SDI Health (now IMS Health, Inc.), and the National Patient Care Database of the Veterans Health Administration. METHODS: We evaluated prevalence of ALI through the application of four distinct case definitions across seven observational healthcare databases. We described how laboratory and clinical characteristics of identified case populations varied across definitions and examined the prevalence of other hepatobiliary disorders among identified ALI cases that may decrease suspicion of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in particular. RESULTS: This study demonstrated that increasing the restrictiveness of the case definition resulted in fewer cases, but greater prevalence of ALI clinical features. Considerable heterogeneity in the frequency of laboratory testing and results observed among cases meeting the most restrictive definition suggests that the clinical features, monitoring patterns and suspicion of ALI are highly variable among patients. CONCLUSIONS: Creation of four distinct case definitions and application across a disparate set of observational databases resulted in significant variation in the prevalence of ALI. A greater understanding of the natural history of ALI through examination of electronic healthcare data can facilitate development of reliable and valid ALI case definitions that may enhance the ability to accurately identify associations between ALI and drug exposures. Considerable heterogeneity in laboratory values and frequency of laboratory testing among individuals meeting the criteria for ALI suggests that the evaluation of ALI is highly variable.
BACKGROUND: Determining the aetiology of acute liver injury (ALI) may be challenging to both clinicians and researchers. Observational research is particularly useful in studying rare medical outcomes such as ALI; however, case definitions for ALI in previous observational studies lack consistency and sensitivity. ALI is a clinically important condition with various aetiologies, including drug exposure. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate four distinct case definitions for ALI across a diverse set of large observational databases, providing a better understanding of ALI prevalence and natural history. DATA SOURCES: Seven healthcare databases: GE Healthcare, MarketScan(®) Lab Database, Humana Inc., Partners HealthCare System, Regenstrief Institute, SDI Health (now IMS Health, Inc.), and the National Patient Care Database of the Veterans Health Administration. METHODS: We evaluated prevalence of ALI through the application of four distinct case definitions across seven observational healthcare databases. We described how laboratory and clinical characteristics of identified case populations varied across definitions and examined the prevalence of other hepatobiliary disorders among identified ALI cases that may decrease suspicion of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in particular. RESULTS: This study demonstrated that increasing the restrictiveness of the case definition resulted in fewer cases, but greater prevalence of ALI clinical features. Considerable heterogeneity in the frequency of laboratory testing and results observed among cases meeting the most restrictive definition suggests that the clinical features, monitoring patterns and suspicion of ALI are highly variable among patients. CONCLUSIONS: Creation of four distinct case definitions and application across a disparate set of observational databases resulted in significant variation in the prevalence of ALI. A greater understanding of the natural history of ALI through examination of electronic healthcare data can facilitate development of reliable and valid ALI case definitions that may enhance the ability to accurately identify associations between ALI and drug exposures. Considerable heterogeneity in laboratory values and frequency of laboratory testing among individuals meeting the criteria for ALI suggests that the evaluation of ALI is highly variable.
Authors: Cheryl Enger; Robert Gately; Eileen E Ming; Steve J Niemcryk; Laura Williams; Andrew T McAfee Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2010-10-14 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: W G Goettsch; E M Heintjes; J J P Kastelein; T J Rabelink; Saga Johansson; R M C Herings Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Francisco J de Abajo; Dolores Montero; Mariano Madurga; Luis A García Rodríguez Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Sharon B Meropol; K Arnold Chan; Zhen Chen; Jonathan A Finkelstein; Sean Hennessy; Ebbing Lautenbach; Richard Platt; Stephanie D Schech; Deborah Shatin; Joshua P Metlay Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Vibha C A Desai; Scott C Quinlan; Anne C Deitz; Jinghua He; Crystal N Holick; Stephan Lanes Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Richard A Hansen; Michael D Gray; Brent I Fox; Joshua C Hollingsworth; Juan Gao; Peng Zeng Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: A Ruigómez; R Brauer; L A García Rodríguez; C Huerta; G Requena; M Gil; Francisco de Abajo; G Downey; A Bate; M Feudjo Tepie; M de Groot; R Schlienger; R Reynolds; O Klungel Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2014-07-29 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Patrick B Ryan; Martijn J Schuemie; Emily Welebob; Jon Duke; Sarah Valentine; Abraham G Hartzema Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Manel Pladevall-Vila; Anton Pottegård; Tania Schink; Johan Reutfors; Rosa Morros; Beatriz Poblador-Plou; Antje Timmer; Joan Forns; Maja Hellfritzsch; Tammo Reinders; David Hägg; Maria Giner-Soriano; Alexandra Prados-Torres; Miguel Cainzos-Achirica; Jesper Hallas; Lena Brandt; Jordi Cortés; Jaume Aguado; Gabriel Perlemuter; Bruno Falissard; Jordi Castellsagué; Emmanuelle Jacquot; Nicolas Deltour; Susana Perez-Gutthann Journal: CNS Drugs Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 5.749