Evaluation of claims‐based computable phenotypes to identify heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction

• Main Authors: Sarah S. Cohen (Author), Véronique L. Roger (Author), Susan A. Weston (Author), Ruoxiang Jiang (Author), Naimisha Movva (Author), Akeem A. Yusuf (Author), Alanna M. Chamberlain (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: Wiley, 2020-12-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 2052-1707; 10.1002/prp2.676
• Keywords: Administrative Data; Algorithm; Electronic Health Records; Heart failure; Therapeutics. Pharmacology; RM1-950
• Source: Pharmacology Research & Perspectives, Vol 8, Iss 6, Pp n/a-n/a (2020)

Abstract The purpose of this analysis was to develop and validate computable phenotypes for heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) using claims‐type measures using the Rochester Epidemiology Project. This retrospective study utilized an existing cohort of Olmsted County, Minnesota residents aged ≥ 20 years diagnosed with HF between 2007 and 2015. The gold standard definition of HFpEF included meeting the validated Framingham criteria for HF and having an LVEF ≥ 50%. Computable phenotypes of claims‐type data elements (including ICD‐9/ICD‐10 diagnostic codes and lab test codes) both individually and in combinations were assessed via sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with respect to the gold standard. In the Framingham‐validated cohort, 2,035 patients had HF; 1,172 (58%) had HFpEF. One in‐patient or two out‐patient diagnosis codes of ICD‐9 428.3X or ICD‐10 I50.3X had 46% sensitivity, 88% specificity, 84% PPV, and 54% NPV. The addition of a BNP/NT‐proBNP test code reduced sensitivity to 35% while increasing specificity to 91% (PPV = 84%, NPV = 51%). Broadening the diagnostic codes to ICD‐9 428.0, 428.3X, and 428.9/ICD‐10 I50.3X and I50.9 increased sensitivity at the expense of decreasing specificity (diagnostic code‐only model: 87% sensitivity, 8% specificity, 56% PPV, 30% NPV; diagnostic code and BNP lab code model: 61% sensitivity, 43% specificity, 60% PPV, 45% NPV). In an analysis conducted to mimic real‐world use of the computable phenotypes, any one in‐patient or out‐patient code of ICD‐9 428/ICD‐10 150 among the broader population (N = 3,755) resulted in lower PPV values compared with the Framingham cohort. However, one in‐patient or two out‐patient instances of ICD‐9 428.0, 428.9, or 428.3X/ICD‐10 150.3X or 150.9 brought the PPV values from the two cohorts closer together. While some misclassification remains, the computable phenotypes defined here may be used in claims databases to identify HFpEF patients and to gain a greater understanding of the characteristics of patients with HFpEF.