Department of Pharmacy Care Systems, Harrison School of Pharmacy, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2014 Jan-Feb;10(1):156-67. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2013.04.012. Epub 2013 Jun 7.
Observational data are useful for studying drug safety; however, to be effective, accurate outcome measurement is paramount.
This study compared alternative outcome definitions for acute liver injury (ALI) and explored opportunities for improving ALI identification in observational data.
The Truven MarketScan® Lab Database (MSLR) was used to identify patients meeting at least 1 of 4 ALI definitions, including definitions based on diagnosis codes, laboratory measures, or combinations of diagnoses, procedures, and/or laboratory measures. Expert panelists reviewed patient data using a Web dashboard. Panelists determined whether they believed the patient had ALI and identified factors influencing their decision. Logistic regression models explored which factors were influential in case determination.
Overall, only 37 of 208 reviewed patients (17.8%) were classified as cases. The diagnosis-based definition yielded no positive cases and the laboratory-based definition yielded the most positive cases (31 of 60). The most influential factors in case classification were occurrence of procedures after the index date (OR = 13.2, 95% CI = 5.3-32.9), no occurrence of drug treatments before the index date (OR = 4.6; 95% CI = 1.6-13.2), occurrence of drug treatments before the index date (OR = 0.3; 95% CI = 0.1-0.6), and no drug treatments after the index date (OR = 0.2; 95% CI = 0.0-0.5).
Comparing ALI definitions illustrated tradeoffs between the number of plausible cases identified and the likelihood of cases being classified as positive. Future research should refine ALI case definitions, considering the import of laboratory results, procedures, and drugs in defining a case.
观察性数据可用于研究药物安全性;然而,为了达到有效目的,准确的结局测量至关重要。
本研究比较了急性肝损伤(ALI)的替代结局定义,并探讨了在观察性数据中改善 ALI 识别的机会。
使用 Truven MarketScan® Lab 数据库(MSLR)来识别至少符合 4 种 ALI 定义之一的患者,包括基于诊断代码、实验室测量或诊断、程序和/或实验室测量的组合的定义。专家小组使用 Web 仪表板审查患者数据。小组成员确定他们是否认为患者患有 ALI,并确定影响他们决策的因素。逻辑回归模型探讨了哪些因素对病例确定有影响。
总体而言,只有 208 名审查患者中的 37 名(17.8%)被归类为病例。基于诊断的定义没有阳性病例,基于实验室的定义则产生了最多的阳性病例(60 例中的 31 例)。病例分类中最具影响力的因素是索引日期后发生的程序(OR=13.2,95%CI=5.3-32.9),索引日期前没有药物治疗(OR=4.6;95%CI=1.6-13.2),索引日期前有药物治疗(OR=0.3;95%CI=0.1-0.6),以及索引日期后没有药物治疗(OR=0.2;95%CI=0.0-0.5)。
比较 ALI 定义说明了所识别的合理病例数量与病例被归类为阳性的可能性之间的权衡。未来的研究应考虑实验室结果、程序和药物在定义病例中的重要性,来完善 ALI 病例定义。