Sonal Singh1, Hassan Fouayzi2, Kathryn Anzuoni2, Leah Goldman2, Jea Young Min3, Marie Griffin3, Carlos G Grijalva3, James A Morrow3, Christine C Whitmore3, Charles E Leonard4, Mano Selvan5, Vinit Nair5, Yunping Zhou5, Sengwee Toh6, Andrew Petrone6, James Williams6, Elnara Fazio-Eynullayeva6, Richard Swain7, D Tyler Coyle7, Susan Andrade2. 1. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health and Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Ave N, Worcester, MA, USA. Sonal.Singh@umassmemorial.org. 2. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health and Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Ave N, Worcester, MA, USA. 3. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Humana/Comprehensive Health Insights, Inc., Louisville, KY, USA. 6. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Valid algorithms for identification of cardiovascular (CV) deaths allow researchers to reliably assess the CV safety of medications, which is of importance to regulatory science, patient safety, and public health. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to conduct a systematic review of algorithms to identify CV death in administrative health plan claims databases. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for English-language studies published between January 1, 2012 and October 17, 2017. We examined references in systematic reviews to identify earlier studies. Selection included any observational study using electronic health care data to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), or negative predictive value (NPV) of algorithms for CV death (sudden cardiac death [SCD], myocardial infarction [MI]-related death, or stroke-related death) among adults aged ≥ 18 years in the United States. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved through further discussion and consensus. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 instrument was used to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: Five studies (n = 4 on SCD, n = 1 on MI- and stroke-related death) were included after a review of 2053 citations. All studies reported algorithm PPVs, with incomplete reporting on other accuracy parameters. One study was at low risk of bias, three studies were at moderate risk of bias, and one study was at unclear risk of bias. Two studies identified community-occurring SCD: one identified events using International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes on death certificates and other criteria from medical claims (PPV = 86.8%) and the other identified events resulting in hospital presentation using first-listed ICD-9 codes on emergency department or inpatient medical claims (PPV = 92.3%). Two studies used death certificates alone to identify SCD (PPV = 27% and 32%, respectively). One study used medical claims to identify CV death (PPV = 36.4%), coronary heart disease mortality (PPV = 28.3%), and stroke mortality (PPV = 34.5%). CONCLUSION: Two existing algorithms based on medical claims diagnoses with or without death certificates can accurately identify SCD to support pharmacoepidemiologic studies. Developing valid algorithms identifying MI- and stroke-related death should be a research priority. PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017078745.
INTRODUCTION: Valid algorithms for identification of cardiovascular (CV) deaths allow researchers to reliably assess the CV safety of medications, which is of importance to regulatory science, patient safety, and public health. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to conduct a systematic review of algorithms to identify CV death in administrative health plan claims databases. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for English-language studies published between January 1, 2012 and October 17, 2017. We examined references in systematic reviews to identify earlier studies. Selection included any observational study using electronic health care data to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), or negative predictive value (NPV) of algorithms for CV death (sudden cardiac death [SCD], myocardial infarction [MI]-related death, or stroke-related death) among adults aged ≥ 18 years in the United States. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved through further discussion and consensus. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 instrument was used to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: Five studies (n = 4 on SCD, n = 1 on MI- and stroke-related death) were included after a review of 2053 citations. All studies reported algorithm PPVs, with incomplete reporting on other accuracy parameters. One study was at low risk of bias, three studies were at moderate risk of bias, and one study was at unclear risk of bias. Two studies identified community-occurring SCD: one identified events using International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes on death certificates and other criteria from medical claims (PPV = 86.8%) and the other identified events resulting in hospital presentation using first-listed ICD-9 codes on emergency department or inpatient medical claims (PPV = 92.3%). Two studies used death certificates alone to identify SCD (PPV = 27% and 32%, respectively). One study used medical claims to identify CV death (PPV = 36.4%), coronary heart disease mortality (PPV = 28.3%), and stroke mortality (PPV = 34.5%). CONCLUSION: Two existing algorithms based on medical claims diagnoses with or without death certificates can accurately identify SCD to support pharmacoepidemiologic studies. Developing valid algorithms identifying MI- and stroke-related death should be a research priority. PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017078745.
Authors: Wayne D Rosamond; Lloyd E Chambless; Gerardo Heiss; Thomas H Mosley; Josef Coresh; Eric Whitsel; Lynne Wagenknecht; Hanyu Ni; Aaron R Folsom Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Charles E Leonard; Colleen M Brensinger; Christina L Aquilante; Warren B Bilker; Denise M Boudreau; Rajat Deo; James H Flory; Joshua J Gagne; Margaret J Mangaali; Sean Hennessy Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Caroline S Fox; Jane C Evans; Martin G Larson; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Christopher J O'Donnell; Paul D Sorlie; Teri A Manolio; William B Kannel; Daniel Levy Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Monika M Safford; Todd M Brown; Paul M Muntner; Raegan W Durant; Stephen Glasser; Jewell H Halanych; James M Shikany; Ronald J Prineas; Tandaw Samdarshi; Vera A Bittner; Cora E Lewis; Christopher Gamboa; Mary Cushman; Virginia Howard; George Howard Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Penny Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Johannes B Reitsma; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jos Kleijnen Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2003-11-10 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Jea Young Min; Carlos G Grijalva; James A Morrow; Christine C Whitmore; Robert E Hawley; Sonal Singh; Richard S Swain; Marie R Griffin Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Rohan Khera; Martijn J Schuemie; Yuan Lu; Anna Ostropolets; RuiJun Chen; George Hripcsak; Patrick B Ryan; Harlan M Krumholz; Marc A Suchard Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Chungsoo Kim; Seng Chan You; Jenna M Reps; Jae Youn Cheong; Rae Woong Park Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Anna Ostropolets; Philip Zachariah; Patrick Ryan; Ruijun Chen; George Hripcsak Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-09-18 Impact factor: 7.942