Accuracy of Japanese claims data in identifying diabetes‐related complications

• Published in: Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety Vol. 30; no. 5; pp. 594 - 601
• Main Authors: Fujihara, Kazuya, Yamada‐Harada, Mayuko, Matsubayashi, Yasuhiro, Kitazawa, Masaru, Yamamoto, Masahiko, Yaguchi, Yuta, Seida, Hiroyasu, Kodama, Satoru, Akazawa, Kohei, Sone, Hirohito
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Chichester, UK John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.05.2021; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: Cardiovascular disease; Cerebrovascular disease; Cerebrovascular diseases; claims‐based diagnosis; Codes; complications; Congestive heart failure; Coronary artery; Coronary artery disease; Diabetes; Diabetes mellitus; Dialysis; Heart failure; Hemodialysis; pharmacoepidemiology; validity; validity; complications; diabetes; claims-based diagnosis; pharmacoepidemiology
• ISSN: 1053-8569; 1099-1557
• DOI: 10.1002/pds.5213

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of various claims‐based definitions of diabetes‐related complications (coronary artery disease [CAD], heart failure, cerebrovascular disease and dialysis). Methods We evaluated data on 1379 inpatients who received care at the Niigata University Medical & Dental Hospital in September 2018. Manual electronic medical chart reviews were conducted for all patients with regard to diabetes‐related complications and were used as the gold standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of each claims‐based definition associated with diabetes‐related complications based on Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC), International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD‐10) codes, procedure codes and medication codes were calculated. Results DPC‐based definitions had higher sensitivity, specificity, and PPV than ICD‐10 code definitions for CAD and cerebrovascular disease, with sensitivity of 0.963–1.000 and 0.905–0.952, specificity of 1.000 and 1.000, and PPV of 1.000 and 1.000, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and PPV were high using procedure codes for CAD and dialysis, with sensitivity of 0.963 and 1.000, specificity of 1.000 and 1.000, and PPV of 1.000 and 1.000, respectively. DPC and/or ICD‐10 codes + medication were better for heart failure than the ICD‐10 code definition, with sensitivity of 0.933, specificity of 1.000, and PPV of 1.000. The PPVs were lower than 60% for all diabetes‐related complications using ICD‐10 codes only. Conclusion The DPC‐based definitions for CAD and cerebrovascular disease, procedure codes for CAD and dialysis, and DPC or ICD‐10 codes with medication codes for heart failure could accurately identify these diabetes‐related complications from claims databases.