Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, Ochsner Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.
JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Jul 1;2(7):750-757. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2017.1460.
Pragmatic clinical trial designs have proposed the use of medical claims data to ascertain clinical events; however, the accuracy of billed diagnoses in identifying potential events is unclear.
To compare the 1-year cumulative incidences of events when events were identified by medical claims vs by physician adjudication and to assess the accuracy of bill-identified events using physician adjudication as the criterion standard.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This post hoc analysis of a clinical trial assessed the medical claims forms and records for all rehospitalizations at 233 US hospitals within 1 year of the index acute myocardial infarction (MI) of 12 365 patients enrolled in the Treatment With Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) study between April 1, 2010, and October 31, 2012. Fourteen patients (0.1%) died during the index hospitalization and were excluded from analysis. Recurrent MI, stroke, and bleeding events were identified per the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis and procedural codes in medical bills. These events were independently adjudicated by study physicians through medical record reviews using the prespecified criteria of recurrent MI and stroke and the bleeding definition by the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) scale. Medical claims were reported on a Uniform Bill-04 claims form; claims were collected from all hospitals visited by patients enrolled in TRANSLATE-ACS. Agreement between medical claims-identified events and physician-adjudicated events over the 12 months after discharge was assessed with the κ statistic. Data were analyzed from January 30, 2015, to March 2, 2017.
Event rates within 1 year after MI.
Among 12 365 patients with acute MI, 8890 (71.9%) were men and mean (SD) age was 60 (11.6) years. The cumulative 1-year incidence of events identified by medical claims was 4.3% for MI, 0.9% for stroke, and 5.0% for bleeding. Incidence rates based on physician adjudication were 4.7% for MI, 0.9% for stroke, and 5.4% for bleeding. Agreement between medical claims-identified and physician-adjudicated events was modest, with a κ of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.79) for MI and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.68) for stroke events. In contrast, agreement between medical claims-identified and physician-adjudicated bleeding events was poor, with a κ of 0.24 (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.30) for any hospitalized bleeding event and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.20) for moderate or severe bleeding on the GUSTO scale.
Event rates at 1 year after MI were lower for MI, stroke, and bleeding when medical claims were used to identify events than when adjudicated by physicians. Medical claims diagnoses were only modestly accurate in identifying MI and stroke admissions but had limited accuracy for bleeding events. An alternative approach may be needed to ensure good safety surveillance in cardiovascular studies.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01088503.
实用临床试验设计提出了使用医疗索赔数据来确定临床事件;然而, billed 诊断在识别潜在事件中的准确性尚不清楚。
比较通过医疗索赔和医师裁决确定的事件在 1 年内的累积发生率,并使用医师裁决作为标准来评估 billed 事件的准确性。
设计、设置和参与者:这是一项临床试验的事后分析,评估了 12365 例在美国 233 家医院索引急性心肌梗死(MI)后 1 年内再住院的医疗索赔表和记录,这些患者均参加了治疗用腺苷二磷酸受体抑制剂:急性冠状动脉综合征后治疗模式和事件的纵向评估(TRANSLATE-ACS)研究,该研究于 2010 年 4 月 1 日至 2012 年 10 月 31 日期间进行。14 例(0.1%)患者在索引住院期间死亡,因此被排除在分析之外。根据国际疾病分类,第九版,临床修正诊断和程序代码,在医疗账单中识别出复发性 MI、中风和出血事件。这些事件由研究医生通过使用复发性 MI 和中风的预定标准以及全球利用链激酶和组织纤溶酶原激活剂治疗闭塞性冠状动脉疾病(GUSTO)量表的出血定义进行的医疗记录审查进行独立裁决。根据统一账单-04 表,医疗索赔报告;从参加 TRANSLATE-ACS 的患者访问过的所有医院收集索赔。使用 κ 统计评估出院后 12 个月内的医疗索赔识别事件和医师裁决事件之间的一致性。数据分析于 2015 年 1 月 30 日至 2017 年 3 月 2 日进行。
MI 后 1 年内的事件发生率。
在 12365 例急性 MI 患者中,8890 例(71.9%)为男性,平均(SD)年龄为 60(11.6)岁。通过医疗索赔确定的 1 年内累积事件发生率为 MI 4.3%,中风 0.9%,出血 5.0%。基于医师裁决的发生率分别为 MI 4.7%、中风 0.9%和出血 5.4%。医疗索赔识别和医师裁决事件之间的一致性适中,κ 值为 MI 的 0.76(95%CI,0.73 至 0.79)和中风事件的 0.55(95%CI,0.41 至 0.68)。相比之下,医疗索赔识别和医师裁决出血事件之间的一致性较差,任何住院出血事件的 κ 值为 0.24(95%CI,0.19 至 0.30),GUSTO 量表中度或重度出血的 κ 值为 0.15(95%CI,0.11 至 0.20)。
使用医疗索赔来识别事件时,MI、中风和出血的 1 年后事件发生率低于医师裁决。医疗索赔诊断在识别 MI 和中风入院方面仅具有适度的准确性,但对出血事件的准确性有限。可能需要采用替代方法来确保心血管研究中的良好安全性监测。
clinicaltrials.gov 标识符:NCT01088503。