Ayad K Ali, Aidan Baglivo, Priya Govil, Liza R Gibbs, Marie C Bradley, Keith E Campbell, Aloka Chakravarty, Tamar Lasky, Victoria Derbyshire, Elizabeth M Garry
{"title":"利用行政保健数据和商业实验室数据对门诊诊断的COVID-19患者的SARS-CoV-2诊断测试和肝功能测试的特征","authors":"Ayad K Ali, Aidan Baglivo, Priya Govil, Liza R Gibbs, Marie C Bradley, Keith E Campbell, Aloka Chakravarty, Tamar Lasky, Victoria Derbyshire, Elizabeth M Garry","doi":"10.1002/pds.70094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To characterize select laboratory tests ordered versus reported for patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in administrative healthcare and commercial laboratory data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Among patients with an outpatient COVID-19 diagnosis claim in HealthVerity data (01/01/2021-12/31/2022), this study described baseline characteristics and descriptively compared SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and liver function tests from administrative healthcare (insurance claims and hospital billing data) and commercial laboratories, overall and by code type (e.g., CPT, LOINC). Select liver function tests were also described by method-specific and methodless LOINC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 214 998 patients with COVID-19, 46.1% had a SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic test recorded within 7 days of diagnosis (in either administrative or laboratory data); 44.5% had a corresponding CPT in medical claims, while only 10.0% had a corresponding LOINC in laboratory data. In contrast, the six most common liver function tests (albumin, aspartate aminotransferase, total protein, alkaline phosphatase, alanine aminotransferase, and total bilirubin) were identified in 55.7%-56.6% of patients via LOINC, but only in 3.2%-4.2% via CPT claims. Of the total count of select liver function tests performed in the laboratory data, 99.7% of aspartate aminotransferase, 96.1% of direct bilirubin, and 82.9% of lactate dehydrogenase were reported by methodless LOINC rather than method-specific LOINC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Important differences were identified between orders for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and liver function tests, as well as missingness of LOINC method, highlighting challenges related to completeness of laboratory data in real-world data sources. These challenges underscore a need to improve data quality when considering the utility of laboratory data for research.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"34 1","pages":"e70094"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Characterization of SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Tests and Liver Function Tests Among Patients With COVID-19 Diagnosed in Outpatient Settings Using Administrative Healthcare Data and Data From Commercial Laboratories.\",\"authors\":\"Ayad K Ali, Aidan Baglivo, Priya Govil, Liza R Gibbs, Marie C Bradley, Keith E Campbell, Aloka Chakravarty, Tamar Lasky, Victoria Derbyshire, Elizabeth M Garry\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pds.70094\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To characterize select laboratory tests ordered versus reported for patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in administrative healthcare and commercial laboratory data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Among patients with an outpatient COVID-19 diagnosis claim in HealthVerity data (01/01/2021-12/31/2022), this study described baseline characteristics and descriptively compared SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and liver function tests from administrative healthcare (insurance claims and hospital billing data) and commercial laboratories, overall and by code type (e.g., CPT, LOINC). Select liver function tests were also described by method-specific and methodless LOINC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 214 998 patients with COVID-19, 46.1% had a SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic test recorded within 7 days of diagnosis (in either administrative or laboratory data); 44.5% had a corresponding CPT in medical claims, while only 10.0% had a corresponding LOINC in laboratory data. In contrast, the six most common liver function tests (albumin, aspartate aminotransferase, total protein, alkaline phosphatase, alanine aminotransferase, and total bilirubin) were identified in 55.7%-56.6% of patients via LOINC, but only in 3.2%-4.2% via CPT claims. Of the total count of select liver function tests performed in the laboratory data, 99.7% of aspartate aminotransferase, 96.1% of direct bilirubin, and 82.9% of lactate dehydrogenase were reported by methodless LOINC rather than method-specific LOINC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Important differences were identified between orders for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and liver function tests, as well as missingness of LOINC method, highlighting challenges related to completeness of laboratory data in real-world data sources. These challenges underscore a need to improve data quality when considering the utility of laboratory data for research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"e70094\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70094\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70094","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Characterization of SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Tests and Liver Function Tests Among Patients With COVID-19 Diagnosed in Outpatient Settings Using Administrative Healthcare Data and Data From Commercial Laboratories.
Purpose: To characterize select laboratory tests ordered versus reported for patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in administrative healthcare and commercial laboratory data.
Methods: Among patients with an outpatient COVID-19 diagnosis claim in HealthVerity data (01/01/2021-12/31/2022), this study described baseline characteristics and descriptively compared SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and liver function tests from administrative healthcare (insurance claims and hospital billing data) and commercial laboratories, overall and by code type (e.g., CPT, LOINC). Select liver function tests were also described by method-specific and methodless LOINC.
Results: Among 214 998 patients with COVID-19, 46.1% had a SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic test recorded within 7 days of diagnosis (in either administrative or laboratory data); 44.5% had a corresponding CPT in medical claims, while only 10.0% had a corresponding LOINC in laboratory data. In contrast, the six most common liver function tests (albumin, aspartate aminotransferase, total protein, alkaline phosphatase, alanine aminotransferase, and total bilirubin) were identified in 55.7%-56.6% of patients via LOINC, but only in 3.2%-4.2% via CPT claims. Of the total count of select liver function tests performed in the laboratory data, 99.7% of aspartate aminotransferase, 96.1% of direct bilirubin, and 82.9% of lactate dehydrogenase were reported by methodless LOINC rather than method-specific LOINC.
Conclusions: Important differences were identified between orders for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and liver function tests, as well as missingness of LOINC method, highlighting challenges related to completeness of laboratory data in real-world data sources. These challenges underscore a need to improve data quality when considering the utility of laboratory data for research.
期刊介绍：
The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report.
Particular areas of interest include:
design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology;
comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world;
methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology;
assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy;
patterns of drug utilization;
relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines;
evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
