Drug Safety

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 91–100 | Cite as

The Role of Hemoglobin Laboratory Test Results for the Detection of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Outcomes Resulting from the Use of Medications in Observational Studies

  • Elisabetta Patorno
  • Joshua J. Gagne
  • Christine Y. Lu
  • Kevin Haynes
  • Andrew T. Sterrett
  • Jason Roy
  • Xingmei Wang
  • Marsha A. Raebel
Original Research Article
First Online:
  • 216 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

The identification of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding and perforated ulcers in claims data typically relies on inpatient diagnoses. The use of hemoglobin laboratory results might increase the detection of UGI events that do not lead to hospitalization.

Objectives

Our objective was to evaluate whether hemoglobin results increase UGI outcome identification in electronic databases, using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as a test case.

Methods

From three data partner sites within the Mini-Sentinel Distributed Database, we identified NSAID initiators aged ≥18 years between 2008 and 2013. Numbers of events and risks within 30 days after NSAID initiation were calculated for four mutually exclusive outcomes: (1) inpatient UGI diagnosis of bleeding or gastric ulcer (standard claims-based definition without laboratory results); (2) non-inpatient UGI diagnosis AND ≥3 g/dl hemoglobin decrease; (3) ≥3 g/dl hemoglobin decrease without UGI diagnosis in any clinical setting; (4) non-inpatient UGI diagnosis, without ≥3 g/dl hemoglobin decrease.

Results

We identified 2,289,772 NSAID initiators across three sites. Overall, 45.3% had one or more hemoglobin result available within 365 days before or 30 days after NSAID initiation; only 6.8% had results before and after. Of 7637 potential outcomes identified, outcome 1 accounted for 21.7%, outcome 2 for 0.8%, outcome 3 for 34.3%, and outcome 4 for 43.3%. Potential cases identified by outcome 3 were largely not suggestive of UGI events. Outcomes 1, 2, and 4 had similar distributions of specific UGI diagnoses.

Conclusions

Using available hemoglobin result values combined with non-inpatient UGI diagnoses identified few additional UGI cases. Non-inpatient UGI diagnostic codes may increase outcome detection but would require validation.

Keywords

Gastric Ulcer Meloxicam Laboratory Test Result Nabumetone Cohort Entry 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Author contributions

EP, JJG, and MAR were involved in all parts of the study. CYL and KH were involved in designing the study and revising the manuscript. ATS, JR, and XW were involved in data analysis and revising the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

The Mini-Sentinel program is funded by the US FDA through contract HHSF22301012T-0008 under Master Agreement HHSF223020091006I from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Conflict of interest

The following authors received salary support from their institutions for this work conducted under contract HHSF22301012T-0008: Elisabetta Patorno, Josh J. Gagne, Christine Y. Lu, Kevin Haynes, Andrew T. Sterrett, Jason Roy, Xingmei Wang, and Marsha A. Raebel.

Ethical approval

The Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections determined that the Common Rule does not apply to activities included in the FDA’s Sentinel Initiative. This assessment also applies to Mini-Sentinel activities such as the work detailed in this paper, as Mini-Sentinel is part of the Sentinel Initiative. Because Mini-Sentinel activities are public health activities in support of FDA’s public health mission, they are not under the purview of institutional review boards or privacy boards.

Supplementary material

40264_2016_472_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2.8 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 2882 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Castellsague J, Riera-Guardia N, Calingaert B, et al. Individual NSAIDs and upper gastrointestinal complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies (the SOS project). Drug Saf. 2012;35:1127–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrade SE, Gurwitz JH, Chan KA, et al. Validation of diagnoses of peptic ulcers and bleeding from administrative databases: a multi-health maintenance organization study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:310–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cattaruzzi C, Troncon MG, Agostinis L, Garcia Rodriguez LA. Positive predictive value of ICD-9th codes for upper gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation in the Sistema Informativo Sanitario Regionale database. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:499–502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lopushinsky SR, Covarrubia KA, Rabeneck L, Austin PC, Urbach DR. Accuracy of administrative health data for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal diseases. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:1733–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Margulis AV, Garcia Rodriguez LA, Hernandez-Diaz S. Positive predictive value of computerized medical records for uncomplicated and complicated upper gastrointestinal ulcer. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009;18:900–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raiford DS, Perez Gutthann S, Garcia Rodriguez LA. Positive predictive value of ICD-9 codes in the identification of cases of complicated peptic ulcer disease in the Saskatchewan hospital automated database. Epidemiology. 1996;7:101–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wahl PM, Rodgers K, Schneeweiss S, Gage BF, Butler J, Wilmer C, Nash M, Esper G, Gitlin N, Osborn N, Short LJ, Bohn RL. Validation of claims-based diagnostic and procedure codes for cardiovascular and gastrointestinal serious adverse events in a commercially-insured population. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:596–603.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cunningham A, Stein CM, Chung CP, Daugherty JR, Smalley WE, Ray WA. An automated database case definition for serious bleeding related to oral anticoagulant use. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20:560–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Platt R, Carnahan RM, Brown JS, Chrischilles E, Curtis LH, Hennessy S, Nelson JC, Racoosin JA, Robb M, Schneeweiss S, Toh S, Weiner MG. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Mini-Sentinel program: status and direction. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(Suppl 1):1–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Curtis LH, Weiner MG, Boudreau DM, Cooper WO, Daniel GW, Nair VP, Raebel MA, Beaulieu NU, Rosofsky R, Woodworth TS, Brown JS. Design considerations, architecture, and use of the Mini-Sentinel distributed data system. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(Suppl 1):23–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Raebel MA, Haynes K, Woodworth TS, Saylor G, Cavagnaro E, Coughlin KO, Curtis LH, Weiner MG, Archdeacon P, Brown JS. Electronic clinical laboratory test results data tables: lessons from Mini-Sentinel. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23:609–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mini-sentinel surveillance plan. Mini-sentinel prospective routine observational monitoring program tools (PROMPT): rivaroxaban surveillance. Version 3. 2015. http://www.mini-sentinel.org/work_products/Assessments/Mini-Sentinel_PROMPT_Rivaroxaban-Surveillance-Plan.pdf.
  13. 13.
    Mini-sentinel medical product assessment. A protocol for assessment of dabigatran. Version 3. 2015. http://www.mini-sentinel.org/work_products/Assessments/Mini-Sentinel_Protocol-for-Assessment-of-Dabigatran.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2016.
  14. 14.
    Sentinel Overview and Description of the Common Data Model v5.0.1. 2015. http://www.mini-sentinel.org/work_products/Data_Activities/Sentinel_Common-Data-Model.pdf.
  15. 15.
    SCDM Clinical Data Elements Workgroup. Sentinel Common Data Model. Laboratory Result Table Documentation. Version 1.0. 2015. http://www.mini-sentinel.org/work_products/Data_Activities/Sentinel_Common-Data-Model_Laboratory-Result-Table-Documentation.pdf.
  16. 16.
    Mehran R, Rao SV, Bhatt DL, Gibson CM, Caixeta A, Eikelboom J, Kaul S, Wiviott SD, Menon V, Nikolsky E, Serebruany V, Valgimigli M, Vranckx P, Taggart D, Sabik JF, Cutlip DE, Krucoff MW, Ohman EM, Steg PG, White H. Standardized bleeding definitions for cardiovascular clinical trials: a consensus report from the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium. Circulation. 2011;123:2736–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rao SV, O’Grady K, Pieper KS, Granger CB, Newby LK, Van de Werf F, Mahaffey KW, Califf RM, Harrington RA. Impact of bleeding severity on clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes. Am J Cardiol. 2005;96:1200–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bovill EG, Terrin ML, Stump DC, Berke AD, Frederick M, Collen D, Feit F, Gore JM, Hillis LD, Lambrew CT, Leiboff R, Mann KG, Markis JE, Pratt CM, Sharkey SW, Sopko G, Tracy RP, Chesebro JH, For the TIMI Investigators. Hemorrhagic events during therapy with recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator, heparin, and aspirin for acute myocardial infarction. Results of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI), Phase II Trial. Ann Intern Med. 1991;115:256–65.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, Montalescot G, Ruzyllo W, Gottlieb S, Neumann FJ, Ardissino D, De Servi S, Murphy SA, Riesmeyer J, Weerakkody G, Gibson CM, Antman EM, TRITON-TIMI 38 Investigators. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2001–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moride Y, Abenhaim L. Evidence of the depletion of susceptibles effect in non-experimental pharmacoepidemiologic research. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:731–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Staa TP, Abenhaim L, Leufkens H. A study of the effects of exposure misclassification due to the time-window design in pharmacoepidemiologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:183–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ray WA. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:915–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabetta Patorno
    • 1
  • Joshua J. Gagne
    • 1
  • Christine Y. Lu
    • 2
  • Kevin Haynes
    • 3
  • Andrew T. Sterrett
    • 4
  • Jason Roy
    • 5
  • Xingmei Wang
    • 5
  • Marsha A. Raebel
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of MedicineBrigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Population MedicineHarvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care InstituteBostonUSA
  3. 3.HealthCoreWilmingtonUSA
  4. 4.Kaiser Permanente Colorado Institute for Health ResearchDenverUSA
  5. 5.University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of MedicinePhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations