Chelsea Canan1, Jennifer M Polinski2, G Caleb Alexander1,3,4, Mary K Kowal2, Troyen A Brennan2, William H Shrank5. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. CVS Health, Woonsocket, RI, USA. 3. Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Health Plan, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Improved methods to identify nonmedical opioid use can help direct health care resources to individuals who need them. Automated algorithms that use large databases of electronic health care claims or records for surveillance are a potential means to achieve this goal. In this systematic review, we reviewed the utility, attempts at validation, and application of such algorithms to detect nonmedical opioid use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for articles describing automatable algorithms that used electronic health care claims or records to identify patients or prescribers with likely nonmedical opioid use. We assessed algorithm development, validation, and performance characteristics and the settings where they were applied. Study variability precluded a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 15 included algorithms, 10 targeted patients, 2 targeted providers, 2 targeted both, and 1 identified medications with high abuse potential. Most patient-focused algorithms (67%) used prescription drug claims and/or medical claims, with diagnosis codes of substance abuse and/or dependence as the reference standard. Eleven algorithms were developed via regression modeling. Four used natural language processing, data mining, audit analysis, or factor analysis. DISCUSSION: Automated algorithms can facilitate population-level surveillance. However, there is no true gold standard for determining nonmedical opioid use. Users must recognize the implications of identifying false positives and, conversely, false negatives. Few algorithms have been applied in real-world settings. CONCLUSION: Automated algorithms may facilitate identification of patients and/or providers most likely to need more intensive screening and/or intervention for nonmedical opioid use. Additional implementation research in real-world settings would clarify their utility.
OBJECTIVE: Improved methods to identify nonmedical opioid use can help direct health care resources to individuals who need them. Automated algorithms that use large databases of electronic health care claims or records for surveillance are a potential means to achieve this goal. In this systematic review, we reviewed the utility, attempts at validation, and application of such algorithms to detect nonmedical opioid use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for articles describing automatable algorithms that used electronic health care claims or records to identify patients or prescribers with likely nonmedical opioid use. We assessed algorithm development, validation, and performance characteristics and the settings where they were applied. Study variability precluded a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 15 included algorithms, 10 targeted patients, 2 targeted providers, 2 targeted both, and 1 identified medications with high abuse potential. Most patient-focused algorithms (67%) used prescription drug claims and/or medical claims, with diagnosis codes of substance abuse and/or dependence as the reference standard. Eleven algorithms were developed via regression modeling. Four used natural language processing, data mining, audit analysis, or factor analysis. DISCUSSION: Automated algorithms can facilitate population-level surveillance. However, there is no true gold standard for determining nonmedical opioid use. Users must recognize the implications of identifying false positives and, conversely, false negatives. Few algorithms have been applied in real-world settings. CONCLUSION: Automated algorithms may facilitate identification of patients and/or providers most likely to need more intensive screening and/or intervention for nonmedical opioid use. Additional implementation research in real-world settings would clarify their utility.
Authors: Mark D Sullivan; Mark J Edlund; Ming-Yu Fan; Andrea DeVries; Jennifer Brennan Braden; Bradley C Martin Journal: Pain Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Stephen T Parente; Susan S Kim; Michael D Finch; Lisa A Schloff; Thomas S Rector; Raafat Seifeldin; J David Haddox Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: J Bradford Rice; Alan G White; Howard G Birnbaum; Matt Schiller; David A Brown; Carl L Roland Journal: Pain Med Date: 2012-07-30 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Stephen F Butler; Simon H Budman; Kathrine C Fernandez; Brian Houle; Christine Benoit; Nathaniel Katz; Robert N Jamison Journal: Pain Date: 2007-05-09 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Sarah A Palumbo; Kayleigh M Adamson; Sarathbabu Krishnamurthy; Shivani Manoharan; Donielle Beiler; Anthony Seiwell; Colt Young; Raghu Metpally; Richard C Crist; Glenn A Doyle; Thomas N Ferraro; Mingyao Li; Wade H Berrettini; Janet D Robishaw; Vanessa Troiani Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-09-01
Authors: Jenny W Sun; Jessica M Franklin; Kathryn Rough; Rishi J Desai; Sonia Hernández-Díaz; Krista F Huybrechts; Brian T Bateman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David S Carrell; Ladia Albertson-Junkans; Arvind Ramaprasan; Grant Scull; Matt Mackwood; Eric Johnson; David J Cronkite; Andrew Baer; Kris Hansen; Carla A Green; Brian L Hazlehurst; Shannon L Janoff; Paul M Coplan; Angela DeVeaugh-Geiss; Carlos G Grijalva; Caihua Liang; Cheryl L Enger; Jane Lange; Susan M Shortreed; Michael Von Korff Journal: J Drug Assess Date: 2020-04-28