Sarah C MacDonald1, Miguel A Hernán1,2,3, Thomas F McElrath4, Sonia Hernández-Díaz1. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pre-existing conditions are imperfectly recorded in health care databases. We assessed whether pre-existing neurologic conditions (epilepsy, multiple sclerosis [MS]) were differentially recorded in the presence of major obstetric outcomes (Caesarean delivery, preterm delivery, preeclampsia) in delivery records. We also evaluated the impact of differential recording on measures of frequency and association between the conditions and outcomes. METHODS: The 2011-2014 Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial Claims Dataset was used to identify pregnancies. We calculated the relative recording of epilepsy and MS at delivery hospitalization compared with a 270-day pre-delivery window both overall and by the presence of major obstetric outcomes. We estimated risk ratios for the association between epilepsy and MS with the outcomes for each ascertainment window. RESULTS: We identified 909 065 pregnancies in women continuously enrolled from 270-days before the delivery date. Of women with epilepsy identified in the pre-delivery window, 73% had the condition coded at delivery. For MS, the proportion was 60%. MS recording at delivery did not vary by obstetric outcomes, however, delivery-coded epilepsy was less likely confirmed in the pre-delivery window in the presence of preeclampsia. Generally, the period of ascertainment did not meaningfully impact risk ratios, however, the risk ratio for preeclampsia associated with epilepsy was 1.67 (95% CI 1.47, 1.90) when epilepsy was ascertained at delivery and 1.26 (95% CI 1.07, 1.48) when epilepsy was ascertained in the pre-delivery window (heterogeneity, P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Ascertainment of epilepsy and MS in delivery hospitalization records underestimated prevalence. However, the window of recording generally did not impact risk ratio estimates of associations with obstetric outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Pre-existing conditions are imperfectly recorded in health care databases. We assessed whether pre-existing neurologic conditions (epilepsy, multiple sclerosis [MS]) were differentially recorded in the presence of major obstetric outcomes (Caesarean delivery, preterm delivery, preeclampsia) in delivery records. We also evaluated the impact of differential recording on measures of frequency and association between the conditions and outcomes. METHODS: The 2011-2014 Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial Claims Dataset was used to identify pregnancies. We calculated the relative recording of epilepsy and MS at delivery hospitalization compared with a 270-day pre-delivery window both overall and by the presence of major obstetric outcomes. We estimated risk ratios for the association between epilepsy and MS with the outcomes for each ascertainment window. RESULTS: We identified 909 065 pregnancies in women continuously enrolled from 270-days before the delivery date. Of women with epilepsy identified in the pre-delivery window, 73% had the condition coded at delivery. For MS, the proportion was 60%. MS recording at delivery did not vary by obstetric outcomes, however, delivery-coded epilepsy was less likely confirmed in the pre-delivery window in the presence of preeclampsia. Generally, the period of ascertainment did not meaningfully impact risk ratios, however, the risk ratio for preeclampsia associated with epilepsy was 1.67 (95% CI 1.47, 1.90) when epilepsy was ascertained at delivery and 1.26 (95% CI 1.07, 1.48) when epilepsy was ascertained in the pre-delivery window (heterogeneity, P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Ascertainment of epilepsy and MS in delivery hospitalization records underestimated prevalence. However, the window of recording generally did not impact risk ratio estimates of associations with obstetric outcomes.
Authors: Shagufta Yasmeen; Patrick S Romano; Michael E Schembri; Janet M Keyzer; William M Gilbert Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: E Wayne Holden; Elizabeth Grossman; Hoang Thanh Nguyen; Margaret J Gunter; Becky Grebosky; Ann Von Worley; Leila Nelson; Scott Robinson; David J Thurman Journal: Dis Manag Date: 2005-02
Authors: Ellen Lu; Yinshan Zhao; Feng Zhu; Mia L van der Kop; Anne Synnes; Leanne Dahlgren; A Dessa Sadovnick; Ana-Luiza Sayao; Helen Tremlett Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: K D Kolstad; J A Mayo; L Chung; Y Chaichian; V M Kelly; M Druzin; D K Stevenson; G M Shaw; J F Simard Journal: BJOG Date: 2019-10-31 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Jennifer J Yland; Yu-Han Chiu; Paolo Rinaudo; John Hsu; Miguel A Hernán; Sonia Hernández-Díaz Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Julia F Simard; Marios Rossides; Elizabeth V Arkema; Elisabet Svenungsson; Anna-Karin Wikström; Murray A Mittleman; Jane E Salmon Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2021-04 Impact factor: 5.178
Authors: Sara Guillen-Aguinaga; Luis Forga; Antonio Brugos-Larumbe; Francisco Guillen-Grima; Laura Guillen-Aguinaga; Ines Aguinaga-Ontoso Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 4.241