Development of an Administrative Claims and Electronic Medical Record-Based Algorithm to Classify Systemic Disease Severity Among Patients with Sjogren's Syndrome in an Integrated Delivery Network in the United States
Author(s)
Ndife B1, Pivneva I2, Patel S1, Rossi C2, Duna G1, Lawrence M1, Signorovitch J3
1Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA, 2Analysis Group, Inc., Montreal, QC, Canada, 3Analysis Group, Inc., Boston, MA, USA
Objectives: Sjögren’s syndrome (SjS) systematic disease activity cannot be ascertained in administrative claims and/or electronic medical records (EMR). Prediction algorithms to classify patients with moderate-to-severe systemic activity using claims/EMR were evaluated. Methods: A retrospective chart review was used to identify adult patients with SjS in a US integrated delivery network and assess disease severity using EULAR’s Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI). Patients with ESSDAI scores ≥5 and <5 were considered to have moderate-to-severe and low systemic SjS severity, respectively. Demographic and 12-month baseline clinical predictors of moderate-to-severe SjS were obtained from linked claims/EMR prior to first ESSDAI assessment. Predictors included healthcare resource utilization (HRU; i.e., inpatient/outpatient/emergency room days), EMR (i.e., laboratory testing), comorbidities, number of specialist visits (e.g., rheumatologist), and medications. Logistic regression modeled the predicted probability of having moderate-to-severe SjS. Discrimination was assessed using the receiver operating curves (ROC) and positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV). Calibration was assessed using Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) goodness-of-fit. Results: Data from 213 patients were collected (mean age 59.6 years, 92% female). Based on chart review, 19 patients (8.9%) had moderate-to-severe SjS (i.e., gold standard). Three models were identified with high discrimination and were well-calibrated: Model 1: Comorbidities, specialists, and medications (ROC=0.886; HL p-value=0.93); Model 2: HRU, specialists, and medications (ROC=0.907; HL p-value=0.96); Model 3: HRU, EMR, specialists, and medications (ROC=0.939; HL p-value=0.88). Using 0.50 predicted probability cut-off, for Models 1 to 3, sensitivity ranged from 11% to 58%, specificity 97% to 99%, PPV 33% to 72% and NPV 92% to 96%. Conclusions: Overall, these prediction models, particularly including EMR data, were successful in ruling out patients with moderate-to-severe systemic disease activity. Given the heterogeneity of SjS, low sample size and sensitivity, and increased likelihood of model overfitting, random forests will be implemented to rank-order importance of predictors and develop a more parsimonious model. Sponsorship: Novartis
Conference/Value in Health Info
2022-05, ISPOR 2022, Washington, DC, USA
Value in Health, Volume 25, Issue 6, S1 (June 2022)
Code
CO4
Topic
Epidemiology & Public Health, Methodological & Statistical Research, Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Predictive Analytics, Disease Classification & Coding, Electronic Medical & Health Records
Disease
Systemic Disorders/Conditions