Development and Evaluation of the Algorithm CErtaInty Tool (ACE-IT) to Assess Electronic Medical Record and Claims-based Algorithms' Fit for Purpose for Safety Outcomes.
Journal
Drug safety
ISSN: 1179-1942
Titre abrégé: Drug Saf
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 9002928
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2023
01 2023
Historique:
accepted:
25
10
2022
pubmed:
18
11
2022
medline:
12
1
2023
entrez:
17
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Electronic health record (EHR) or medical claims-based algorithms (i.e., operational definitions) can be used to define safety outcomes using real-world data. However, existing tools do not allow researchers and decision-makers to adequately appraise whether a particular algorithm is fit for purpose (FFP) to support regulatory decisions on drug safety surveillance. Our objective was to develop a tool to enable regulatory decision-makers and other stakeholders to appraise whether a given algorithm is FFP for a specific decision context. We drafted a set of 77 generic items informed by regulatory guidance documents, existing instruments, and publications. The outcome of ischemic stroke served as an exemplar to inform the development of draft items. The items were designed to be outcome independent. We conducted a three-round online Delphi panel to develop and refine the tool and achieve consensus on items (> 70% agreement) among panel participants composed of regulators, researchers from pharmaceutical organizations, academic clinicians, methodologists, pharmacoepidemiologists, and cardiologists. We conducted a qualitative analysis of panel responses. Five pairs of reviewers independently evaluated two ischemic stroke algorithm validation studies to test its application. We developed a user guide, with explanation and elaboration for each item, guidance on essential and additional elements for user responses, and an illustrative example of a complete assessment. Furthermore, we conducted a 2-h online stakeholder panel of 16 participants from regulatory agencies, academic institutions, and industry. We solicited input on key factors for an FFP assessment, their general reaction to the Algorithm CErtaInty Tool (ACE-IT), limitations of the tool, and its potential use. The expert panel reviewed and made changes to the initial list of 77 items. The panel achieved consensus on 38 items, and the final version of the ACE-IT includes 34 items after removal of duplicate items. Applying the tool to two ischemic stroke algorithms demonstrated challenges in its application and identified shared concepts addressed by more than one item. The ACE-IT was viewed positively by the majority of stakeholders. They identified that the tool could serve as an educational resource as well as an information-sharing platform. The time required to complete the assessment was identified as an important limitation. We consolidated items with shared concepts and added a preliminary screen section and a summary assessment box based on their input. The final version of the ACE-IT is a 34-item tool for assessing whether algorithm validation studies on safety outcomes are FFP. It comprises the domains of internal validity (24 items), external validity (seven items), and ethical conduct and reporting of the validation study (three items). The internal validity domain includes sections on objectives, data sources, population, outcomes, design and setting, statistical methods, reference standard, accuracy, and strengths and limitations. The external validity domain includes items that assess the generalizability to a proposed target study. The domain on ethics and transparency includes items on ethical conduct and reporting of the validation study. The ACE-IT supports a structured, transparent, and flexible approach for decision-makers to appraise whether electronic health record or medical claims-based algorithms for safety outcomes are FFP for a specific decision context. Reliability and validity testing using a larger sample of participants in other therapeutic areas and further modifications to reduce the time needed to complete the assessment are needed to fully evaluate its utility for regulatory decision-making.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36396894
doi: 10.1007/s40264-022-01254-4
pii: 10.1007/s40264-022-01254-4
pmc: PMC9672644
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
87-97Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Références
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE). Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff Best Practices for Conducting and Reporting Pharmacoepidemiologic Safety Studies Using Electronic Healthcare Data. Silver Springs, MD: FDA; 2013.
Benchimol EI, Manuel DG, To T, Griffiths AM, Rabeneck L, Guttmann A. Development and use of reporting guidelines for assessing the quality of validation studies of health administrative data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(8):821–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.006
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36.
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG, et al. STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11): e012799.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799
Dreyer NA, Bryant A, Velentgas P. The GRACE checklist: a validated assessment tool for high quality observational studies of comparative effectiveness. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016;22(10):1107–13.
Wang SV, Pinheiro S, Hua W, et al. STaRT-RWE: structured template for planning and reporting on the implementation of real-world evidence studies. BMJ. 2021;372: m4856.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4856
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE). Real-World Data: Assessing Electronic Health Records and Medical Claims Data To Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products: Guidance for Industry. DHHS. https://www.fda.gov/media/152503/download . Published 2021. Updated September 2021. Accessed January 31st, 2022.
Lanes S, Brown JS, Haynes K, Pollack MF, Walker AM. Identifying health outcomes in healthcare databases. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24(10):1009–16.
doi: 10.1002/pds.3856
Cocoros NM, Arlett P, Dreyer NA, et al. The certainty framework for assessing real-world data in studies of medical product safety and effectiveness. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;109(5):1189–96.
doi: 10.1002/cpt.2045
Beyrer J, Abedtash H, Hornbuckle K, Murray JF. A review of stakeholder recommendations for defining fit for purpose real-world evidence algorithms. J Comp Eff Res. 2022;2:2.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE). Real-World Data: Assessing Registries to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products Guidance for Industry. https://www.fda.gov/media/154449/download . Published 2021. Accessed January 13, 2022.
European Medicines Agency. Head of Medicines Agencies. Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP) Module VIII – Post-authorization safety studies (Rev 3). Updated October 13, 2017. Accessed April 23, 2018. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2012/06/WC500129137.pdf
European Medicines Agency. Scientific guidance on post-authorisation efficacy studies. Updated November 6, 2015. Accessed: November 22, 2021. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2015/11/WC500196379.pdf
European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance. The ENCePP guide on methodological standards in pharmacoepidemiology (Revision 5). Updated July 5, 2016. Accessed: October 22, 2021. http://www.encepp.eu/standards_and_guidances/documents/ENCePPGuideofMethStandardsinPE_Rev5.pdf
Velentgas P, Dreyer NA, Nourjah P, Smith SR, (Eds.). TM. Developing a protocol for observational comparative effectiveness research: a user's guide. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Effective Health Care Program on developing a protocol for observational comparative effectiveness research: a user’s guide. . In. Rockville (MD): (US)2013 Jan.: Accessed November 30, 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK126190/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK126190.pdf .
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). PCORI methodology standards. Updated February 26 AN, 2018. https://www.pcori.org/research-results/about-our-research/research-methodology/pcori-methodology-standards .
Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, et al. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(4):401–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002
Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna H. Consulting the oracle: ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research. J Adv Nurs. 2006;53(2):205–12.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03716.x
Pill J. The Delphi method: substance, context, a critique and an annotated bibliography. Socioecon Plann Sci. 1971;5(1):57–71.
doi: 10.1016/0038-0121(71)90041-3
Loughlin KG, Moore LF. Using Delphi to achieve congruent objectives and activities in a pediatrics department. J Med Educ. 1979;54(2):101–6.
Green B, Jones M, Hughes D, Williams A. Applying the Delphi technique in a study of GPs’ information requirements. Health Soc Care Community. 1999;7(3):198–205.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2524.1999.00176.x
Ammann EM, Leira EC, Winiecki SK, et al. Chart validation of inpatient ICD-9-CM administrative diagnosis codes for ischemic stroke among IGIV users in the Sentinel Distributed Database. Medicine. 2017;96(52): e9440.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009440
Lakshminarayan K, Larson JC, Virnig B, et al. Comparison of medicare claims versus physician adjudication for identifying stroke outcomes in the women’s health initiative. Stroke. 2014;45(3):815–21.
doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.003408
Berger JS, Laliberté F, Kharat A, et al. Real-world effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with obesity in a US population. Curr Med Res Opin. 2021;37(6):881–90.
doi: 10.1080/03007995.2021.1901223
Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95: 103208.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
Kumamaru H, Judd SE, Curtis JR, et al. Validity of claims-based stroke algorithms in contemporary medicare data. Circulation. 2014;7(4):611–9.
Niesner K, Murff HJ, Griffin MR, et al. Validation of VA administrative data algorithms for identifying cardiovascular disease hospitalization. Epidemiology. 2013;24(2):334–5.
doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3182821e75
Roumie CL, Mitchel E, Gideon PS, Varas-Lorenzo C, Castellsague J, Griffin MR. Validation of ICD-9 codes with a high positive predictive value for incident strokes resulting in hospitalization using Medicaid health data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17(1):20–6.
doi: 10.1002/pds.1518
Thigpen JL, Dillon C, Forster KB, et al. Validity of international classification of disease codes to identify ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage among individuals with associated diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8(1):8–14.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000371
Tirschwell DL, Longstreth WT Jr. Validating administrative data in stroke research. Stroke. 2002;33(10):2465–70.
doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000032240.28636.BD
Wahl PM, Rodgers K, Schneeweiss S, et al. Validation of claims-based diagnostic and procedure codes for cardiovascular and gastrointestinal serious adverse events in a commercially-insured population. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19(6):596–603.
doi: 10.1002/pds.1924
Leptak C, Menetski JP, Wagner JA, Aubrecht J, Brady L, Brumfield M, Chin WW, Hoffmann S, Kelloff G, Lavezzari G, Ranganathan R, Sauer JM, Sistare FD, Zabka T, Wholley D. What evidence do we need for biomarker qualification? Sci Transl Med. 2017;9(417):l4599. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aal4599 .
doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aal4599
Food and Drug Administration. 2013. "Best Practices for Conducting and Reporting Pharmacoepidemiologic Safety Studies Using Electronic Healthcare Data."