Rishi J Desai1, Daniel H Solomon1,2, Nancy Shadick2, Christine Iannaccone2, Seoyoung C Kim1,2. 1. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Division of Rheumatology, Immunology and Allergy, Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examined the accuracy of claims-based algorithms to identify smoking against self-reported smoking data. METHODS: Medicare patients enrolled in the Brigham and Women's Hospital Rheumatoid Arthritis Sequential Study were identified. For each patient, self-reported smoking status was extracted from Women's Hospital Rheumatoid Arthritis Sequential Study and the date of this measurement was defined as the index-date. Two algorithms identified smoking in Medicare claims: (i) only using diagnoses and procedure codes and (ii) using anti-smoking prescriptions in addition to diagnoses and procedure codes. Both algorithms were implemented: first, only using 365-days pre-index claims and then using all available pre-index claims. Considering self-reported smoking status as the gold standard, we calculated specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were included in this study, of which 48% reported smoking. The algorithm only using diagnosis and procedure codes had the lowest sensitivity (9.8%, 95%CI 2.4%-17.3%), NPV (54.9%, 95%CI 46.1%-63.9%), and AUC (0.55, 95%CI 0.51-0.59) when applied in the period of 365 days pre-index. Incorporating pharmacy claims and using all available pre-index information improved the sensitivity (27.9%, 95%CI 16.6%-39.1%), NPV (60.4%, 95%CI 51.3%-69.5%), and AUC (0.64, 95%CI 0.58-0.70). The specificity and positive predictive value was 100% for all the algorithms tested. CONCLUSION: Claims-based algorithms can identify smokers with limited sensitivity but very high specificity. In the absence of other reliable means, use of a claims-based algorithm to identify smoking could be cautiously considered in observational studies.
PURPOSE: This study examined the accuracy of claims-based algorithms to identify smoking against self-reported smoking data. METHODS: Medicare patients enrolled in the Brigham and Women's Hospital Rheumatoid Arthritis Sequential Study were identified. For each patient, self-reported smoking status was extracted from Women's Hospital Rheumatoid Arthritis Sequential Study and the date of this measurement was defined as the index-date. Two algorithms identified smoking in Medicare claims: (i) only using diagnoses and procedure codes and (ii) using anti-smoking prescriptions in addition to diagnoses and procedure codes. Both algorithms were implemented: first, only using 365-days pre-index claims and then using all available pre-index claims. Considering self-reported smoking status as the gold standard, we calculated specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were included in this study, of which 48% reported smoking. The algorithm only using diagnosis and procedure codes had the lowest sensitivity (9.8%, 95%CI 2.4%-17.3%), NPV (54.9%, 95%CI 46.1%-63.9%), and AUC (0.55, 95%CI 0.51-0.59) when applied in the period of 365 days pre-index. Incorporating pharmacy claims and using all available pre-index information improved the sensitivity (27.9%, 95%CI 16.6%-39.1%), NPV (60.4%, 95%CI 51.3%-69.5%), and AUC (0.64, 95%CI 0.58-0.70). The specificity and positive predictive value was 100% for all the algorithms tested. CONCLUSION: Claims-based algorithms can identify smokers with limited sensitivity but very high specificity. In the absence of other reliable means, use of a claims-based algorithm to identify smoking could be cautiously considered in observational studies.
Authors: Dennis Chen; Marcos I Restrepo; Michael J Fine; Mary Jo V Pugh; Antonio Anzueto; Mark L Metersky; Brandy Nakashima; Chester Good; Eric M Mortensen Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Brian D Carter; Christian C Abnet; Diane Feskanich; Neal D Freedman; Patricia Hartge; Cora E Lewis; Judith K Ockene; Ross L Prentice; Frank E Speizer; Michael J Thun; Eric J Jacobs Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Steven M Kurtz; Edmund Lau; Kevin L Ong; Leah Carreon; Heather Watson; Todd Albert; Steven Glassman Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2012-08-24
Authors: Hyungjin Myra Kim; Eric G Smith; Claire M Stano; Dara Ganoczy; Kara Zivin; Heather Walters; Marcia Valenstein Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Rishi J Desai; Krista F Huybrechts; Sonia Hernandez-Diaz; Helen Mogun; Elisabetta Patorno; Karol Kaltenbach; Leslie S Kerzner; Brian T Bateman Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-05-14
Authors: Elizabeth M Garry; John B Buse; Jennifer L Lund; Virginia Pate; Til Stürmer Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Tiansheng Wang; Jeff Y Yang; John B Buse; Virginia Pate; Huilin Tang; Edward L Barnes; Robert S Sandler; Til Stürmer Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Cara L McDermott; Aasthaa Bansal; Scott D Ramsey; Gary H Lyman; Sean D Sullivan Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Sundar S Shrestha; Xin Xu; Xu Wang; Stephen D Babb; Brian S Armour; Brian A King; Katrina F Trivers Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Kaylee B Crockett; Ying Wen; Edgar T Overton; Elizabeth A Jackson; Robert S Rosenson; Paul Muntner; Lisandro D Colantonio Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 4.766
Authors: Babak B Navi; George Howard; Virginia J Howard; Hong Zhao; Suzanne E Judd; Mitchell S V Elkind; Costantino Iadecola; Lisa M DeAngelis; Hooman Kamel; Peter M Okin; Susan Gilchrist; Elsayed Z Soliman; Mary Cushman; Paul Muntner Journal: Neurology Date: 2018-05-04 Impact factor: 9.910