Lidia M V R Moura1,2,3, Jason R Smith1, Deborah Blacker2,4, Christine Vogeli5, Lee H Schwamm1,3, Andrew J Cole1,3, Sonia Hernandez-Diaz2, John Hsu6,7. 1. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 3. Department of Neurology, Harvard Medical School. 4. Departments of Psychiatry. 5. Medicine. 6. Department of Medicine, Mongan Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital. 7. Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uncertain validity of epilepsy diagnoses within health insurance claims and other large datasets have hindered efforts to study and monitor care at the population level. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate prediction models using longitudinal Medicare administrative data to identify patients with actual epilepsy among those with the diagnosis. RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS, MEASURES: We used linked electronic health records and Medicare administrative data including claims to predict epilepsy status. A neurologist reviewed electronic health record data to assess epilepsy status in a stratified random sample of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65+ years between January 2012 and December 2014. We then reconstructed the full sample using inverse probability sampling weights. We developed prediction models using longitudinal Medicare data, then in a separate sample evaluated the predictive performance of each model, for example, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: Of 20,945 patients in the reconstructed sample, 2.1% had confirmed epilepsy. The best-performing prediction model to identify prevalent epilepsy required epilepsy diagnoses with multiple claims at least 60 days apart, and epilepsy-specific drug claims: AUROC=0.93 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.90-0.96], and with an 80% diagnostic threshold, sensitivity=87.8% (95% CI, 80.4%-93.2%), specificity=98.4% (95% CI, 98.2%-98.5%). A similar model also performed well in predicting incident epilepsy (k=0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Prediction models using longitudinal Medicare data perform well in predicting incident and prevalent epilepsy status accurately.
BACKGROUND: Uncertain validity of epilepsy diagnoses within health insurance claims and other large datasets have hindered efforts to study and monitor care at the population level. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate prediction models using longitudinal Medicare administrative data to identify patients with actual epilepsy among those with the diagnosis. RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS, MEASURES: We used linked electronic health records and Medicare administrative data including claims to predict epilepsy status. A neurologist reviewed electronic health record data to assess epilepsy status in a stratified random sample of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65+ years between January 2012 and December 2014. We then reconstructed the full sample using inverse probability sampling weights. We developed prediction models using longitudinal Medicare data, then in a separate sample evaluated the predictive performance of each model, for example, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS: Of 20,945 patients in the reconstructed sample, 2.1% had confirmed epilepsy. The best-performing prediction model to identify prevalent epilepsy required epilepsy diagnoses with multiple claims at least 60 days apart, and epilepsy-specific drug claims: AUROC=0.93 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.90-0.96], and with an 80% diagnostic threshold, sensitivity=87.8% (95% CI, 80.4%-93.2%), specificity=98.4% (95% CI, 98.2%-98.5%). A similar model also performed well in predicting incident epilepsy (k=0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Prediction models using longitudinal Medicare data perform well in predicting incident and prevalent epilepsy status accurately.
Authors: E Faught; J Richman; R Martin; E Funkhouser; R Foushee; P Kratt; Y Kim; K Clements; N Cohen; D Adoboe; R Knowlton; M Pisu Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-01-18 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Kirsten M Fiest; Khara M Sauro; Samuel Wiebe; Scott B Patten; Churl-Su Kwon; Jonathan Dykeman; Tamara Pringsheim; Diane L Lorenzetti; Nathalie Jetté Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ingrid E Scheffer; Samuel Berkovic; Giuseppe Capovilla; Mary B Connolly; Jacqueline French; Laura Guilhoto; Edouard Hirsch; Satish Jain; Gary W Mathern; Solomon L Moshé; Douglas R Nordli; Emilio Perucca; Torbjörn Tomson; Samuel Wiebe; Yue-Hua Zhang; Sameer M Zuberi Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Jason R Smith; Felipe J S Jones; Brandy E Fureman; Jeffrey R Buchhalter; Susan T Herman; Neishay Ayub; Christopher McGraw; Sydney S Cash; Daniel B Hoch; Lidia M V R Moura Journal: Epilepsy Res Date: 2020-07-11 Impact factor: 3.045
Authors: Samuel Waller Terman; Wesley T Kerr; Carole E Aubert; Chloe E Hill; Zachary A Marcum; James F Burke Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-12-10 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Samuel Waller Terman; Chun C Lin; Wesley T Kerr; Lindsey B DeLott; Brian C Callaghan; James F Burke Journal: Neurology Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Lidia M V R Moura; Jason R Smith; Zhiyu Yan; Deborah Blacker; Lee H Schwamm; Joseph P Newhouse; Sonia Hernandez-Diaz; John Hsu Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Lidia M V R Moura; Natalia Festa; Mary Price; Margarita Volya; Nicole M Benson; Sahar Zafar; Max Weiss; Deborah Blacker; Sharon-Lise Normand; Joseph P Newhouse; John Hsu Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Samuel W Terman; Joshua D Niznik; Geertruida Slinger; Willem M Otte; Kees P J Braun; Carole E Aubert; Wesley T Kerr; Cynthia M Boyd; James F Burke Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 2.903
Authors: Chloe E Hill; Chun Chieh Lin; Samuel W Terman; Subhendu Rath; Jack M Parent; Lesli E Skolarus; James F Burke Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 11.800