Validating new coding algorithms to improve identification of alcohol-associated and nonalcohol-associated cirrhosis hospitalizations in administrative databases.
Journal
Hepatology communications
ISSN: 2471-254X
Titre abrégé: Hepatol Commun
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101695860
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jul 2024
01 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
01
02
2024
accepted:
23
04
2024
medline:
19
6
2024
pubmed:
19
6
2024
entrez:
19
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Alcohol (AC) and nonalcohol-associated cirrhosis (NAC) epidemiology studies are limited by available case definitions. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of previous and newly developed case definitions to identify AC and NAC hospitalizations. We randomly selected 700 hospitalizations from the 2008 to 2022 Canadian Discharge Abstract Database with alcohol-associated and cirrhosis-related International Classification of Diseases 10th revision codes. We compared standard approaches for AC (ie, AC code alone and alcohol use disorder and nonspecific cirrhosis codes together) and NAC (ie, NAC codes alone) case identification to newly developed approaches that combine standard approaches with new code combinations. Using electronic medical record review as the reference standard, we calculated case definition positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC. Electronic medical records were available for 671 admissions; 252 had confirmed AC and 195 NAC. Compared to previous AC definitions, the newly developed algorithm selecting for the AC code, alcohol-associated hepatic failure code, or alcohol use disorder code with a decompensated cirrhosis-related condition or NAC code provided the best overall positive predictive value (91%, 95% CI: 87-95), negative predictive value (89%, CI: 86-92), sensitivity (81%, CI: 76-86), specificity (96%, CI: 93-97), and AUROC (0.88, CI: 0.85-0.91). Comparing all evaluated NAC definitions, high sensitivity (92%, CI: 87-95), specificity (82%, CI: 79-86), negative predictive value (96%, CI: 94-98), AUROC (0.87, CI: 0.84-0.90), but relatively low positive predictive value (68%, CI: 62-74) were obtained by excluding alcohol use disorder codes and using either a NAC code in any diagnostic position or a primary diagnostic code for HCC, unspecified/chronic hepatic failure, esophageal varices without bleeding, or hepatorenal syndrome. New case definitions show enhanced accuracy for identifying hospitalizations for AC and NAC compared to previously used approaches.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Alcohol (AC) and nonalcohol-associated cirrhosis (NAC) epidemiology studies are limited by available case definitions. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of previous and newly developed case definitions to identify AC and NAC hospitalizations.
METHODS
METHODS
We randomly selected 700 hospitalizations from the 2008 to 2022 Canadian Discharge Abstract Database with alcohol-associated and cirrhosis-related International Classification of Diseases 10th revision codes. We compared standard approaches for AC (ie, AC code alone and alcohol use disorder and nonspecific cirrhosis codes together) and NAC (ie, NAC codes alone) case identification to newly developed approaches that combine standard approaches with new code combinations. Using electronic medical record review as the reference standard, we calculated case definition positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Electronic medical records were available for 671 admissions; 252 had confirmed AC and 195 NAC. Compared to previous AC definitions, the newly developed algorithm selecting for the AC code, alcohol-associated hepatic failure code, or alcohol use disorder code with a decompensated cirrhosis-related condition or NAC code provided the best overall positive predictive value (91%, 95% CI: 87-95), negative predictive value (89%, CI: 86-92), sensitivity (81%, CI: 76-86), specificity (96%, CI: 93-97), and AUROC (0.88, CI: 0.85-0.91). Comparing all evaluated NAC definitions, high sensitivity (92%, CI: 87-95), specificity (82%, CI: 79-86), negative predictive value (96%, CI: 94-98), AUROC (0.87, CI: 0.84-0.90), but relatively low positive predictive value (68%, CI: 62-74) were obtained by excluding alcohol use disorder codes and using either a NAC code in any diagnostic position or a primary diagnostic code for HCC, unspecified/chronic hepatic failure, esophageal varices without bleeding, or hepatorenal syndrome.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
New case definitions show enhanced accuracy for identifying hospitalizations for AC and NAC compared to previously used approaches.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38896072
doi: 10.1097/HC9.0000000000000469
pii: 02009842-202407010-00002
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Références
Huang DQ, Terrault NA, Tacke F, Gluud LL, Arrese M, Bugianesi E, et al. Global epidemiology of cirrhosis—Aetiology, trends and predictions. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;20:1–11.
Orman ES, Roberts A, Ghabril M, Nephew L, Desai AP, Patidar K, et al. Trends in characteristics, mortality, and other outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed cirrhosis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e196412.
Flemming JA, Djerboua M, Groome PA, Booth CM, Terrault NA. NAFLD and alcohol-associated liver disease will be responsible for almost all new diagnoses of cirrhosis in Canada by 2040. Hepatology. 2021;74:3330–44.
Sepanlou SG, Safiri S, Bisignano C, Ikuta KS, Merat S, Saberifiroozi M, et al. The global, regional, and national burden of cirrhosis by cause in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5:245–66.
Hirode G, Saab S, Wong RJ. Trends in the burden of chronic liver disease among hospitalized US adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e201997.
Kim D, Perumpail BJ, Wijarnpreecha K, Manikat R, Cholankeril G, Ahmed A, et al. Trends in aetiology-based hospitalisation for cirrhosis before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2023;58:218–228.
Moon AM, Singal AG, Tapper EB. Contemporary epidemiology of chronic liver disease and cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18:2650–66.
Information CIfH. Assigning Diagnosis Types to DAD Abstracts [job aid]. Volume 2022, 2022.
Nehra MS, Ma Y, Clark C, Amarasingham R, Rockey DC, Singal AG. Use of administrative claims data for identifying patients with cirrhosis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2013;47:e50–4.
Shearer JE, Gonzalez JJ, Min T, Parker R, Jones R, Su GL, et al. Systematic review: development of a consensus code set to identify cirrhosis in electronic health records. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2022;55:645–57.
Hayward KL, Johnson AL, McKillen BJ, Burke NT, Bansal V, Horsfall LU, et al. ICD-10-AM codes for cirrhosis and related complications: key performance considerations for population and healthcare studies. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2020;7:7.
Bengtsson B, Askling J, Ludvigsson JF, Hagström H. Validity of administrative codes associated with cirrhosis in Sweden. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2020;55:1205–1210.
Ramrakhiani NS, Le MH, Yeo YH, Le AK, Maeda M, Nguyen MH. Validity of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Codes for cirrhosis. Dig Dis. 2021;39:243–6.
Khalifa A, Obeid JS, Gregoski MJ, Rockey DC. Accurate identification of patients with cirrhosis and its complications in the electronic health record. Dig Dis Sci. 2023;68:2360–9.
Kramer JR, Davila JA, Miller ED, Richardson P, Giordano TP, El‐Serag HB. The validity of viral hepatitis and chronic liver disease diagnoses in Veterans Affairs administrative databases. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008;27:274–82.
Vestberg K, Thulstrup AM, Sørensen HT, Ottesen P, Sabroe S, Vilstrup H. Data quality of administratively collected hospital discharge data for liver cirrhosis epidemiology. J Med Syst. 1997;21:11–20.
Deleuran T, Vilstrup H, Jepsen P. Decreasing mortality among Danish alcoholic cirrhosis patients: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:817–22.
Deleuran T, Vilstrup H, Becker U, Jepsen P. Epidemiology of alcoholic liver disease in Denmark 2006-2011: A population-based study. Alcohol Alcohol. 2015;50:352–7.
Kraglund F, Deleuran T, Askgaard G, Fleming KM, Jepsen P. Decreasing incidence of alcohol-related liver disease in Denmark: A 25-year nationwide study. Clin Epidemiol. 2021;13:1–11.
Jepsen P, Ott P, Andersen PK, Sørensen HT, Vilstrup H. Clinical course of alcoholic liver cirrhosis: A Danish population-based cohort study. Hepatology. 2010;51:1675–1682.
Hayward KL, Johnson AL, Horsfall LU, Moser C, Valery PC, Powell EE. Detecting non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and risk factors in health databases: Accuracy and limitations of the ICD-10-AM. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2021;8:8.
Philip G, Djerboua M, Carlone D, Flemming JA. Validation of a hierarchical algorithm to define chronic liver disease and cirrhosis etiology in administrative healthcare data. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0229218.
Lapointe-Shaw L, Georgie F, Carlone D, Cerocchi O, Chung H, Dewit Y, et al. Identifying cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma in health administrative data: A validation study. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0201120.
Panchal SA, Kaplan DE, Goldberg DS, Mahmud N. Algorithms to identify alcoholic hepatitis hospitalizations in patients with cirrhosis. Dig Dis Sci. 2022;67:4395–4402.
Goldberg D, Lewis J, Halpern S, Weiner M, Lo Re V. Validation of three coding algorithms to identify patients with end-stage liver disease in an administrative database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21:765–769.
Mulherin SA, Miller WC. Spectrum bias or spectrum effect? Subgroup variation in diagnostic test evaluation. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:598–602.
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, et al. STARD 2015: An updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology. 2015;277:826–32.
Bujang MA, Adnan TH. Requirements for minimum sample size for sensitivity and specificity analysis. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:Ye01–6.
Information CIfH. Data Quality Documentation, Discharge Abstract Database—Multi-Year Information. 2012.
Goudsmit BFJ, Putter H, Tushuizen ME, de Boer J, Vogelaar S, Alwayn IPJ, et al. Validation of the Model for End-stage Liver Disease sodium (MELD-Na) score in the Eurotransplant region. Am J Transplant. 2021;21:229–40.
Alberta Gof. Alberta Netcare Learning Centre [Internet]. Person Directory, Netcare Learning Centre. Accessed April 19, 2023. https://www.albertanetcare.ca/learningcentre/Person-Directory.htm.
Crabb DW, Bataller R, Chalasani NP, Kamath PS, Lucey M, Mathurin P, et al. Standard definitions and common data elements for clinical trials in patients with alcoholic hepatitis: Recommendation from the NIAAA Alcoholic Hepatitis Consortia. Gastroenterology. 2016;150:785–90.
Ginès P, Krag A, Abraldes JG, Solà E, Fabrellas N, Kamath PS. Liver cirrhosis. Lancet. 2021;398:1359–76.
Dhanda A, Bodger K, Hood S, Henn C, Allison M, Amasiatu C, et al. The Liverpool alcohol-related liver disease algorithm identifies twice as many emergency admissions compared to standard methods when applied to Hospital Episode Statistics for England. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2023;57:368–377.
Pang JX, Ross E, Borman MA, Zimmer S, Kaplan GG, Heitman SJ, et al. Validation of coding algorithms for the identification of patients hospitalized for alcoholic hepatitis using administrative data. BMC Gastroenterol. 2015;15:116.
Mapakshi S, Kramer JR, Richardson P, El-Serag HB, Kanwal F. Positive predictive value of International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Codes for cirrhosis and its related complications. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16:1677–8.
Åström H, Wester A, Hagström H. Administrative coding for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is accurate in Swedish patients. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2023;58:931–6.
Mellinger JL, Shedden K, Winder GS, Tapper E, Adams M, Fontana RJ, et al. The high burden of alcoholic cirrhosis in privately insured persons in the United States. Hepatology. 2018;68:872–882.
Zou KH, O’Malley AJ, Mauri L. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis for evaluating diagnostic tests and predictive models. Circulation. 2007;115:654–7.
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–45.
Dahiya M, Eboreime E, Hyde A, Rahman S, Sebastianski M, Carbonneau M, et al. International Classification of Diseases Codes are useful in identifying cirrhosis in administrative databases. Dig Dis Sci. 2022;67:2107–22.
Driver RJ, Balachandrakumar V, Burton A, Shearer J, Downing A, Cross T, et al. Validation of an algorithm using inpatient electronic health records to determine the presence and severity of cirrhosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in England: an observational study. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e028571.
Ioannou GN, Green P, Lowy E, Mun EJ, Berry K. Differences in hepatocellular carcinoma risk, predictors and trends over time according to etiology of cirrhosis. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0204412.
Pearson MM, Kim NJ, Berry K, Moon AM, Su F, Vutien P, et al. Associations between alcohol use and liver-related outcomes in a large National Cohort of Patients With Cirrhosis. Hepatol Commun. 2021;5:2080–95.
Otero Varela L, Doktorchik C, Wiebe N, Quan H, Eastwood C. Exploring the differences in ICD and hospital morbidity data collection features across countries: An international survey. BMC Health Services Research. 2021;21:1–9.
Kerry- Barnard S, Gomes D. National Child Development Study: A guide to the linked health administrative datasets – Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). UCL Centre for Longitudinal Studies; 2020.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Healthcare cost and Utilization Project — HCUP. Introduction to the HCUP National Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2020. Accessed April 11, 2024. https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/nation/nis/NISIntroduction2020.pdf
Quan H, Li B, Duncan Saunders L, Parsons GA, Nilsson CI, Alibhai A, et al. Assessing validity of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data in recording clinical conditions in a unique dually coded database. Health Serv Res. 2008;43:1424–41.