Observational analysis shows limited use of validated algorithms in post-marketing studies, indicating a gap in safety assessments.
Background In pharmacoepidemiological research, misclassification is a concern with claims-based algorithms (also called computable phenotypes). Validating them is crucial, particularly within regulatory settings. However, the extent of their application remains unclear globally. Objectives This study aimed to investigate the frequency and trends of validated claims-based algorithms use in post-marketing database studies. Method We reviewed all Japanese risk management plans published until January 2023, identifying four issue types [Effectiveness Issues (EI), Important Identified Risks (IIR), Important Potential Risks (IPR), and Important Missing Information (IMI)] that were planned to use a claims-based algorithm in post-marketing database studies. We then calculated the proportion of issues intending to use a validated claims-based algorithm, and performed subgroup analyses by issue type. Results Of 68 issues (3 EI, 47 IIR, 13 IPR, 5 IMI), 15 (22.1%) planned to use a validated algorithm, all for outcome definitions; 10 to conduct new validation studies and 5 to refer to existing studies, including studies with high positive predictive value and sensitivity. Subgroup analyses by issue type showed that the proportions were 100% for EI, 17.0% for IIR, 30.8% for IPR, and 0% for IMI. Conclusion Validated algorithm use was the highest for effectiveness issues but limited for safety, suggesting that results from these post-marketing database studies for safety issues may not provide sufficient evidence, highlighting the need to promote the use of validated claims-based algorithms. Future studies should use more recent data, compare the use of validated algorithms between Japan and other countries, and explore barriers to their adoption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ishiguro et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: