Why the study?
Validation of claims data is needed prior to its use in heart failure diagnostic development, despite providing a large and efficient source of clinical events.
Medicare claims data demonstrate substantial agreement with adjudicated clinical events, supporting their validity for use in the development and evaluation of heart failure diagnostics.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Claims data may support HF event capture; leaves open broader validation for diagnostic algorithms before clinical use.
BACKGROUND: Although claims data provide a large and efficient source of clinical events, validation is needed prior to use in heart failure (HF) diagnostic development. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from the Multisensor Chronic Evaluations in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients (MultiSENSE) study, used to create the HeartLogic HF diagnostic, were linked with fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare claims. Events were matched by patient ID and date, and agreement was calculated between claims primary HF diagnosis codes and study event adjudication. HF events (HFEs) were defined as inpatient visits, or outpatient visits with intravenous decongestive therapy. Diagnostic performance was measured as HFE-detection sensitivity and false-positive rate (FPR). Linkage of 791 MultiSENSE subjects returned 320 FFS patients with an average follow-up duration of 0.94 years. Although study and claims deaths matched exactly (n = 14), matching was imperfect between study hospitalizations and acute inpatient claims events. Of 239 total events, 165 study hospitalizations (69%) matched inpatient claims events, 28 hospitalizations matched outpatient claims events (12%), 14 hospitalizations were study-unique (6%), and 32 inpatient events were claims-unique (13%). Inpatient HF classification had substantial agreement with study adjudication (κ = 0.823). Diagnostic performance was not different between claims and study events (sensitivity = 75.6% vs 77.6% and FPR = 1.539 vs 1.528 alerts/patient-year). HeartLogic-detected events contributed to > 90% of the HFE costs used for evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptable event matching, good agreement of claims diagnostic codes with adjudication, and equivalent diagnostic performance support the validity of using claims for HF diagnostic development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wariar et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: