Validity of ICD-10-based algorithms to identify patients with influenza in inpatient and outpatient settings.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the validity of ICD-10-CM code-based algorithms as proxies for influenza in inpatient and outpatient settings in the USA. METHODS: Administrative claims data (2015-2018) from the largest commercial insurer in New Jersey (NJ), USA, were probabilistically linked to outpatient and inpatient electronic health record (EHR) data containing influenza test results from a large NJ health system. The primary claims-based algorithms defined influenza as presence of an ICD-10-CM code for influenza, stratified by setting (inpatient/outpatient) and code position for inpatient encounters. Test characteristics and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using test-positive influenza as a reference standard. Test characteristics of alternative outpatient algorithms incorporating CPT/HCPCS testing codes and anti-influenza medication pharmacy claims were also calculated. RESULTS: There were 430 documented influenza test results within the study period (295 inpatient, 135 outpatient). The claims-based influenza definition had a sensitivity of 84.9% (95% CI 72.9%-92.1%), specificity of 96.3% (95% CI 93.1%-98.0%), and PPV of 83.3% (95% CI 71.3%-91.0%) in the inpatient setting, and a sensitivity of 76.7% (95% CI 59.1%-88.2%), specificity of 96.2% (95% CI 90.6%-98.5%), PPV of 85.2% (95% CI 67.5%-94.1%) in the outpatient setting. Primary inpatient discharge diagnoses had a sensitivity of 54.7% (95% CI 41.5%-67.3%), specificity of 99.6% (95% CI 97.7%-99.9%), and PPV of 96.7% (95% CI 83.3%-99.4%). CPT/HCPCS codes and anti-influenza medication claims were present for few outpatient encounters (sensitivity 3%-10%). CONCLUSIONS: In a large US healthcare system, inpatient ICD-10-CM codes for influenza, particularly primary inpatient diagnoses, had high predictive value for test-positive influenza. Outpatient ICD-10-CM codes were moderately predictive of test-positive influenza.

Drug overdose risk with benzodiazepine treatment in young adults: Comparative analysis in privately and publicly insured individuals.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Benzodiazepines (BZDs) carry a risk for drug overdose and are prescribed alone or simultaneously with selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for the treatment of anxiety and depression in young adults. We aimed to measure risks of drug overdose following BZD treatment initiation, and simultaneous BZD and SSRI initiation, compared with SSRI treatment alone in young adults with depression or anxiety. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: The cohort study used administrative databases covering privately (MarketScan, 1/1/2009-12/31/2018) and publicly (Medicaid, 1/1/2015-12/31/2016) insured young adults (18-29 years) in the United States. Those with depression or anxiety diagnoses newly initiating BZD or SSRI treatment (without BZD or SSRI prescriptions in prior year) were included. Simultaneous "BZD + SSRI" initiation was defined as starting BZD and SSRI treatment on the same day. The cohorts included 604 664 privately insured young adults (BZD = 22%, BZD + SSRI = 10%, SSRI = 68%) and 110 493 publicly insured young adults (BZD = 23%, BZD + SSRI = 5%, SSRI = 72%). MEASUREMENTS: Incident medically treated drug overdose events were identified from emergency department and inpatient encounters (ICD poisoning codes) within 6 months of treatment initiation. Crude and propensity-score adjusted cumulative incidence and hazard ratios (HR) were estimated. Sub-analyses evaluated drug overdose intent. FINDINGS: Adjusted HRs of drug overdose for BZD vs. SSRI treatment was 1.36 (95% confidence interval [CI]:1.23-1.51) in privately and 1.59 (95%CI:1.37-1.83) in publicly insured young adults. The adjusted HRs of drug overdose for BZD + SSRI treatment vs. SSRI treatment were 1.99 (95%CI:1.77-2.25) in privately and 1.98 (95%CI:1.47-2.68) in publicly insured young adults. CONCLUSIONS: Among young adults in the United States, initiating benzodiazepine treatment for anxiety and depression, alone or simultaneously with selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), appears to have an increased risk of medically treated drug overdose compared with SSRI treatment alone. These associations were observed in publicly and privately insured individuals.

Risk of clinically relevant hyperglycemia with metoprolol compared to carvedilol in older adults with heart failure and diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Although prior literature suggests that metoprolol may worsen glucose control compared to carvedilol, whether this has clinical relevance among older adults with diabetes and heart failure (HF) remains an open question. METHODS: This was a US retrospective cohort study utilizing data sourced from a 50% national sample of Medicare fee-for-service claims of patients with part D prescription drug coverage (2007-2017). Among patients with diabetes and HF, we identified initiators of metoprolol or carvedilol, which were 1:1 propensity score matched on >90 variables. The primary outcome was initiation of a new oral or injectable antidiabetic medication (proxy for uncontrolled diabetes); secondary outcomes included initiation of insulin and severe hyperglycemic event (composite of emergency room visits or hospitalizations related to hyperglycemia). RESULTS: Among 24 239 propensity score-matched pairs (mean [SD] age 77.7 [8.0] years; male [39.1%]), there were 8150 (incidence rate per 100 person-years [IR] = 33.5) episodes of antidiabetic medication initiation among metoprolol users (exposure arm) compared to 8576 (IR = 33.4) among carvedilol users (comparator arm) compared to corresponding to an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94, 1.01). Similarly, metoprolol was not associated with a significant increase in the risk of secondary outcomes including insulin initiation: aHR of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.04) and severe hyperglycemic events: aHR of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this large study of older adults with HF and diabetes, initiation of metoprolol compared to carvedilol was not associated with an increase in the risk of clinically relevant hyperglycemia.

Validity of Race and Ethnicity Codes in Medicare Administrative Data Compared With Gold-standard Self-reported Race Collected During Routine Home Health Care Visits.

BACKGROUND: Misclassification of Medicare beneficiaries' race/ethnicity in administrative data sources is frequently overlooked and a limitation in health disparities research. OBJECTIVE: To compare the validity of 2 race/ethnicity variables found in Medicare administrative data [enrollment database (EDB) and Research Triangle Institute (RTI) race] against a gold-standard source also available in the Medicare data warehouse: the self-reported race/ethnicity variable on the home health Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS). SUBJECTS: Medicare beneficiaries over the age of 18 who received home health care in 2015 (N=4,243,090). MEASURES: Percent agreement, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and Cohen κ coefficient. RESULTS: The EDB and RTI race variable have high validity for black race and low validity for American Indian/Alaskan Native race. Although the RTI race variable has better validity than the EDB race variable for other races, κ values suggest room for future improvements in classification of whites (0.90), Hispanics (0.87), Asian/Pacific Islanders (0.77), and American Indian/Alaskan Natives (0.44). DISCUSSION: The status quo of using "good-enough for government" race/ethnicity variables contained in Medicare administrative data for minority health disparities research can be improved through the use of self-reported race/ethnicity data, available in the Medicare data warehouse. Health services and policy researchers should critically examine the source of race/ethnicity variables used in minority health and health disparities research. Future work to improve the accuracy of Medicare beneficiaries' race/ethnicity data should incorporate and augment the self-reported race/ethnicity data contained in assessment and survey data, available within the Medicare data warehouse.

Placental ABC Transporters: Biological Impact and Pharmaceutical Significance.

The human placenta fulfills a variety of essential functions during prenatal life. Several ABC transporters are expressed in the human placenta, where they play a role in the transport of endogenous compounds and may protect the fetus from exogenous compounds such as therapeutic agents, drugs of abuse, and other xenobiotics. To date, considerable progress has been made toward understanding ABC transporters in the placenta. Recent studies on the expression and functional activities are discussed. This review discusses the placental expression and functional roles of several members of ABC transporter subfamilies B, C, and G including MDR1/P-glycoprotein, the MRPs, and BCRP, respectively. Since placental ABC transporters modulate fetal exposure to various compounds, an understanding of their functional and regulatory mechanisms will lead to more optimal medication use when necessary in pregnancy.

Risk of fracture and the concomitant use of bisphosphonates with osteoporosis-inducing medications.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on the concomitant use of bisphosphonates and medications that can influence bone metabolism and potentially attenuate bisphosphonate antifracture efficacy. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and CINAHL were searched for articles published in English through December 2014 using the following terms: bisphosphonates, bone density conservation agents, acid-suppressive therapy, levothyroxine, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), bone fractures. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were included if they reported results of concomitant use of any listed medications with bisphosphonates and risk of fractures and focused on women. Articles that focused generally on the use of one of the listed medications and fractures without explicitly examining the potential antifracture efficacy or attenuation of bisphosphonates were excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 6 relevant studies were identified. Four epidemiological studies reported a statistically significant dose-dependent increase in the risk of fractures when bisphosphonates and acid-suppressive drugs were used together. One post hoc analysis of clinical trial data suggested no attenuation of the antifracture effects of bisphosphonates when used concomitantly with acid-suppressive therapy. One study involving bisphosphonates and SSRIs noted a statistically significant association between fracture risk and SSRI use. No study examining TZDs or levothyroxine with bisphosphonates was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Existing research suggests potential attenuation of bisphosphonate antifracture efficacy among patients taking acid-suppressive medications. Based on their pharmacological actions, TZDs, SSRIs, and levothyroxine have similar implications. The paucity of evidence in the literature associating the attenuation of bisphosphonate antifracture efficacy when combined with other medications suggests that further investigation is needed.

Medication-related dizziness in the older adult.

With increased medication use among the older adult population, adverse drug events and polypharmacy can be significant causes of dizziness in the elderly. The evidence evaluated in this review is helpful in clinical practice but requires an additional detailed investigation into the agents discussed to understand the risk/benefit ratio associated with medications. Examples of medications highly associated with dizziness in older adults and discussed in this review include cardiovascular and central nervous system agents. Several other medication classes associated with dizziness are among the medications most commonly used by older patients.

Further studies on the binding of N1-substituted tryptamines at h5-HT6 receptors.

N(1)-Arylsulfonyl-substituted analogs of N,N-dimethyltryptamine bind at 5-HT(6) receptors. Replacement of the aryl moiety with similarly hydrophobic alkyl substituents results in decreased affinity, as does replacement of a benzenesulfonyl moiety with a benzyl group. Current findings indicate that an aryl (or substituted aryl) sulfonyl (rather than alkylsulfonyl or benzyl) moiety is optimal for high-affinity binding, and further suggest that the N(1)-benzenesulfonyl- and their corresponding N(1)-benzyltryptamine counterparts bind in a different fashion.