Julie M Paik1,2,3,4, Elisabetta Patorno1,4, Min Zhuo1,2,4,5, Lily G Bessette1, Cassandra York1, Nileesa Gautam1, Dae Hyun Kim1,4,6,7, Seoyoung C Kim1,4,8. 1. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Renal Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. New England Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Renal Division, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Division of Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 8. Division of Rheumatology, Inflammation, and Immunity, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior validation studies of claims-based definitions of chronic kidney disease (CKD) using ICD-9 codes reported overall low sensitivity, high specificity, and variable but reasonable PPV. No studies to date have evaluated the accuracy of ICD-10 codes to identify a US patient population with CKD. METHODS: We assessed the accuracy of claims-based algorithms to identify adults with CKD Stages 3-5 compared with laboratory values in a subset (~40%) of a US commercial insurance claims database (Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database). We calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) of one or two ICD-9 (2012-2014) or ICD-10 (2016-2018) codes for CKD compared with a lab-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) occurring within prespecified windows (±90 days, ±180 days, ±365 days) of the ICD-based CKD code(s). RESULTS: The study population ranged between 104 774 and 161 305 patients (ICD-9 cohorts) and between 285 520 and 373 220 patients (ICD-10 cohorts). The mean age was 74.4 years (ICD-9) and 75.6 years (ICD-10) and the median eGFR was 48 ml/min/1.73 m2 . The algorithm of two CKD codes compared with a lab value ±90 days of the first code achieved the highest PPV (PPV 86.36% [ICD-9] and 86.07% [ICD-10]). Overall, ICD-10 based codes had comparable PPVs to ICD-9 based codes and all ICD-10 based algorithms had PPVs >80%. The algorithm of one CKD code compared with laboratory value ±180 days maintained the PPV above 80% but still retained a large number of patients (PPV 80.32% [ICD-9] and 81.56% [ICD-10]). CONCLUSION: An ICD-10-based definition of CKD identified with sufficient accuracy a patient population with CKD Stages 3-5. Our findings suggest that claims databases could be used for future real-world research studies in patients with CKD Stages 3-5.
BACKGROUND: Prior validation studies of claims-based definitions of chronic kidney disease (CKD) using ICD-9 codes reported overall low sensitivity, high specificity, and variable but reasonable PPV. No studies to date have evaluated the accuracy of ICD-10 codes to identify a US patient population with CKD. METHODS: We assessed the accuracy of claims-based algorithms to identify adults with CKD Stages 3-5 compared with laboratory values in a subset (~40%) of a US commercial insurance claims database (Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database). We calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) of one or two ICD-9 (2012-2014) or ICD-10 (2016-2018) codes for CKD compared with a lab-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) occurring within prespecified windows (±90 days, ±180 days, ±365 days) of the ICD-based CKD code(s). RESULTS: The study population ranged between 104 774 and 161 305 patients (ICD-9 cohorts) and between 285 520 and 373 220 patients (ICD-10 cohorts). The mean age was 74.4 years (ICD-9) and 75.6 years (ICD-10) and the median eGFR was 48 ml/min/1.73 m2 . The algorithm of two CKD codes compared with a lab value ±90 days of the first code achieved the highest PPV (PPV 86.36% [ICD-9] and 86.07% [ICD-10]). Overall, ICD-10 based codes had comparable PPVs to ICD-9 based codes and all ICD-10 based algorithms had PPVs >80%. The algorithm of one CKD code compared with laboratory value ±180 days maintained the PPV above 80% but still retained a large number of patients (PPV 80.32% [ICD-9] and 81.56% [ICD-10]). CONCLUSION: An ICD-10-based definition of CKD identified with sufficient accuracy a patient population with CKD Stages 3-5. Our findings suggest that claims databases could be used for future real-world research studies in patients with CKD Stages 3-5.
Authors: George R Bailie; George Eisele; Lei Liu; Erik Roys; Margaret Kiser; Frederick Finkelstein; Robert Wolfe; Friedrich Port; Sally Burrows-Hudson; Rajiv Saran Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh; Tom Greene; Lesley A Stevens; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Stephen Hendriksen; John W Kusek; Frederick Van Lente Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-08-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jamie L Fleet; Stephanie N Dixon; Salimah Z Shariff; Robert R Quinn; Danielle M Nash; Ziv Harel; Amit X Garg Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Marcello Tonelli; Natasha Wiebe; Braden J Manns; Scott W Klarenbach; Matthew T James; Pietro Ravani; Neesh Pannu; Jonathan Himmelfarb; Brenda R Hemmelgarn Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2018-11-02
Authors: Christoph Wanner; Johannes Schuchhardt; Chris Bauer; Stefanie Lindemann; Meike Brinker; Sheldon X Kong; Frank Kleinjung; Andrea Horvat-Broecker; Tatsiana Vaitsiakhovich Journal: J Nephrol Date: 2022-05-14 Impact factor: 3.902
Authors: Pietro Manuel Ferraro; Nera Agabiti; Laura Angelici; Silvia Cascini; Anna Maria Bargagli; Marina Davoli; Giovanni Gambaro; Claudia Marino Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 4.964