真实世界肺癌人群中免疫相关不良事件(irAE)病例定义的验证

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
James S Heyward, Jodi B Segal, Hemalkumar B Mehta, Joseph C Murray
{"title":"真实世界肺癌人群中免疫相关不良事件(irAE)病例定义的验证","authors":"James S Heyward, Jodi B Segal, Hemalkumar B Mehta, Joseph C Murray","doi":"10.1002/pds.70100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of real-world data is increasing to examine immune-related adverse event (irAE) incidence and risk factors in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) users. We aimed to validate five case definition algorithms for irAE in a Johns Hopkins lung cancer registry.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked electronic health record (EHR) and cancer registry data from a large academic healthcare system. The Lung Immunotherapy irAE Monitoring Registry assesses irAEs in a group of patients treated for lung cancer at Johns Hopkins Medicine from 2013 to 2020. We used data from inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department encounters, including International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 codes and medication administration records to classify the presence or absence of irAEs using five distinct algorithms. These algorithms included three that used both diagnosis (Dx) and medication (Rx) codes, one that used Rx codes only, and one that used Dx codes only, ranging from most numerous criteria (most stringent) to least numerous criteria (least stringent). We compared all five algorithms' performances against chart review-ascertained irAE status and reported sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and C-statistic (C-stat), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We also explored algorithm performance by specific organ system toxicities and by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) severity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study cohort included 354 patients with ICI exposure for whom chart review-ascertained irAE status was available. A total of 89 (25.1%) experienced at least one irAE (38 pneumonitis, 12 arthritis, 12 colitis, 7 thyroiditis, and others). Across algorithm versions, Se ranged from 59.3% to 93.2% in descending order of algorithm stringency; Sp ranged from 21.0% to 77.6% in ascending order of algorithm stringency, and PPV ranged from 19.1% to 34.7%. The C-stat ranged from 0.57 (95% CI, 0.53-0.61) (Dx codes only) to 0.71 (0.64-0.77) (Rx codes only). For severe irAE (CTCAE Grade 3-5), all algorithms performed better than in the primary analysis, and four exceeded the threshold for usefulness as a measurement tool (maximum C-stat: 0.78 [0.71-0.85] [Rx codes only]). For severe tissue-specific toxicities, algorithmic detection of irAE pneumonitis, colitis, and hepatitis performed better than for the overall group of severe toxicities. Generally, the algorithm versions depicted a Se-Sp tradeoff depending on algorithm stringency.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this validation study of five irAE case definition algorithms, a combination of ICD-10 codes and medication administration codes generally perform well to identify more severe irAE (CTCAE Grade 3-5), and severe pneumonitis, hepatitis, and colitis (common irAEs) among all possible irAE severity levels and sites. Medication codes alone perform well at identifying severe irAE, while the most stringent algorithm (mirroring guideline-recommended irAE treatment) has the highest Sp and PPV. Algorithms have utility for comparing the relative risk of irAE between regimens or patient subgroups.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"34 2","pages":"e70100"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11970256/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of Immune-Related Adverse Event (irAE) Case Definitions in a Real-World Lung Cancer Population.\",\"authors\":\"James S Heyward, Jodi B Segal, Hemalkumar B Mehta, Joseph C Murray\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pds.70100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of real-world data is increasing to examine immune-related adverse event (irAE) incidence and risk factors in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) users. We aimed to validate five case definition algorithms for irAE in a Johns Hopkins lung cancer registry.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked electronic health record (EHR) and cancer registry data from a large academic healthcare system. The Lung Immunotherapy irAE Monitoring Registry assesses irAEs in a group of patients treated for lung cancer at Johns Hopkins Medicine from 2013 to 2020. We used data from inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department encounters, including International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 codes and medication administration records to classify the presence or absence of irAEs using five distinct algorithms. These algorithms included three that used both diagnosis (Dx) and medication (Rx) codes, one that used Rx codes only, and one that used Dx codes only, ranging from most numerous criteria (most stringent) to least numerous criteria (least stringent). We compared all five algorithms' performances against chart review-ascertained irAE status and reported sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and C-statistic (C-stat), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We also explored algorithm performance by specific organ system toxicities and by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) severity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study cohort included 354 patients with ICI exposure for whom chart review-ascertained irAE status was available. A total of 89 (25.1%) experienced at least one irAE (38 pneumonitis, 12 arthritis, 12 colitis, 7 thyroiditis, and others). Across algorithm versions, Se ranged from 59.3% to 93.2% in descending order of algorithm stringency; Sp ranged from 21.0% to 77.6% in ascending order of algorithm stringency, and PPV ranged from 19.1% to 34.7%. The C-stat ranged from 0.57 (95% CI, 0.53-0.61) (Dx codes only) to 0.71 (0.64-0.77) (Rx codes only). For severe irAE (CTCAE Grade 3-5), all algorithms performed better than in the primary analysis, and four exceeded the threshold for usefulness as a measurement tool (maximum C-stat: 0.78 [0.71-0.85] [Rx codes only]). For severe tissue-specific toxicities, algorithmic detection of irAE pneumonitis, colitis, and hepatitis performed better than for the overall group of severe toxicities. Generally, the algorithm versions depicted a Se-Sp tradeoff depending on algorithm stringency.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this validation study of five irAE case definition algorithms, a combination of ICD-10 codes and medication administration codes generally perform well to identify more severe irAE (CTCAE Grade 3-5), and severe pneumonitis, hepatitis, and colitis (common irAEs) among all possible irAE severity levels and sites. Medication codes alone perform well at identifying severe irAE, while the most stringent algorithm (mirroring guideline-recommended irAE treatment) has the highest Sp and PPV. Algorithms have utility for comparing the relative risk of irAE between regimens or patient subgroups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety\",\"volume\":\"34 2\",\"pages\":\"e70100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11970256/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70100\",\"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.70100","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:越来越多地使用真实世界的数据来检查免疫检查点抑制剂(ICI)使用者的免疫相关不良事件(irAE)发生率和危险因素。我们的目的是验证约翰霍普金斯大学肺癌登记处的五种病例定义算法。方法:我们进行了一项回顾性队列研究,使用链接的电子健康记录(EHR)和来自大型学术医疗保健系统的癌症登记数据。肺免疫治疗irAE监测注册表评估了2013年至2020年在约翰霍普金斯医学院接受肺癌治疗的一组患者的irAE。我们使用来自住院、门诊和急诊科的数据,包括国际疾病分类(ICD)-10代码和药物管理记录,使用五种不同的算法对是否存在irae进行分类。这些算法包括三个同时使用诊断(Dx)和药物(Rx)代码,一个只使用Rx代码,一个只使用Dx代码,从最多的标准(最严格)到最少的标准(最不严格)不等。我们将所有五种算法的性能与图表评审确定的irAE状态和报告的敏感性(Se)、特异性(Sp)、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)和c -统计量(C-stat)进行了比较,并采用95%置信区间(CI)。我们还通过特定器官系统毒性和不良事件(CTCAE)严重程度的通用术语标准探讨了算法的性能。结果:研究队列包括354例ICI暴露的患者,他们的图表回顾确定了irAE状态。共有89人(25.1%)经历了至少一次irAE(38例肺炎,12例关节炎,12例结肠炎,7例甲状腺炎等)。在不同的算法版本中,Se从59.3%到93.2%不等,其严格程度由高到低;Sp在21.0% ~ 77.6%之间,PPV在19.1% ~ 34.7%之间。C-stat范围为0.57 (95% CI, 0.53-0.61)(仅限Dx编码)至0.71(0.64-0.77)(仅限Rx编码)。对于严重的irAE (CTCAE等级3-5),所有算法的表现都优于初步分析,其中四个算法超过了可用性测量工具的阈值(最大C-stat: 0.78[0.71-0.85][仅限Rx代码])。对于严重的组织特异性毒性,算法检测irAE肺炎、结肠炎和肝炎的效果优于整体严重毒性组。通常,算法版本描述了根据算法严格性的Se-Sp权衡。结论:在这项对5种irAE病例定义算法的验证研究中,ICD-10代码和给药代码的组合在所有可能的irAE严重程度和部位中,通常可以很好地识别更严重的irAE (CTCAE 3-5级),以及严重的肺炎、肝炎和结肠炎(常见的irAE)。单独的药物代码在识别严重的irAE方面表现良好,而最严格的算法(反映指南推荐的irAE治疗)具有最高的Sp和PPV。算法在比较不同治疗方案或不同患者亚组之间irAE的相对风险方面具有实用价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validation of Immune-Related Adverse Event (irAE) Case Definitions in a Real-World Lung Cancer Population.

Background: The use of real-world data is increasing to examine immune-related adverse event (irAE) incidence and risk factors in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) users. We aimed to validate five case definition algorithms for irAE in a Johns Hopkins lung cancer registry.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked electronic health record (EHR) and cancer registry data from a large academic healthcare system. The Lung Immunotherapy irAE Monitoring Registry assesses irAEs in a group of patients treated for lung cancer at Johns Hopkins Medicine from 2013 to 2020. We used data from inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department encounters, including International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 codes and medication administration records to classify the presence or absence of irAEs using five distinct algorithms. These algorithms included three that used both diagnosis (Dx) and medication (Rx) codes, one that used Rx codes only, and one that used Dx codes only, ranging from most numerous criteria (most stringent) to least numerous criteria (least stringent). We compared all five algorithms' performances against chart review-ascertained irAE status and reported sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and C-statistic (C-stat), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We also explored algorithm performance by specific organ system toxicities and by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) severity.

Results: The study cohort included 354 patients with ICI exposure for whom chart review-ascertained irAE status was available. A total of 89 (25.1%) experienced at least one irAE (38 pneumonitis, 12 arthritis, 12 colitis, 7 thyroiditis, and others). Across algorithm versions, Se ranged from 59.3% to 93.2% in descending order of algorithm stringency; Sp ranged from 21.0% to 77.6% in ascending order of algorithm stringency, and PPV ranged from 19.1% to 34.7%. The C-stat ranged from 0.57 (95% CI, 0.53-0.61) (Dx codes only) to 0.71 (0.64-0.77) (Rx codes only). For severe irAE (CTCAE Grade 3-5), all algorithms performed better than in the primary analysis, and four exceeded the threshold for usefulness as a measurement tool (maximum C-stat: 0.78 [0.71-0.85] [Rx codes only]). For severe tissue-specific toxicities, algorithmic detection of irAE pneumonitis, colitis, and hepatitis performed better than for the overall group of severe toxicities. Generally, the algorithm versions depicted a Se-Sp tradeoff depending on algorithm stringency.

Conclusion: In this validation study of five irAE case definition algorithms, a combination of ICD-10 codes and medication administration codes generally perform well to identify more severe irAE (CTCAE Grade 3-5), and severe pneumonitis, hepatitis, and colitis (common irAEs) among all possible irAE severity levels and sites. Medication codes alone perform well at identifying severe irAE, while the most stringent algorithm (mirroring guideline-recommended irAE treatment) has the highest Sp and PPV. Algorithms have utility for comparing the relative risk of irAE between regimens or patient subgroups.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
173
审稿时长
3 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信