Identifying incident cancer cases in dispensing claims: A validation study using Australia's Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) data

Dispensing claims are used commonly as proxy measures in pharmacoepidemiological studies; however, their validity is often untested. To assess the performance of a proxy for identifying cancer cases based on the dispensing of anticancer medicines and estimate the misclassification of cancer status a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of population data science 2019-03, Vol.5 (1), p.1152-1152
Hauptverfasser: Daniels, B, Tervonen, H E, Pearson, S-A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Dispensing claims are used commonly as proxy measures in pharmacoepidemiological studies; however, their validity is often untested. To assess the performance of a proxy for identifying cancer cases based on the dispensing of anticancer medicines and estimate the misclassification of cancer status and potential for bias researchers may encounter when using this proxy. We conducted our validation study using Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) client data linked with the New South Wales (NSW) Cancer Registry and Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme data. We included DVA clients aged ≥65 years residing in NSW between July 2004 and December 2012. We matched clients with a cancer diagnosis to clients without a diagnosis based on demographic characteristics and available observation time. We used dispensing claims for anticancer medicines dispensed between July 2004 and December 2013 as a proxy to identify clients with cancer and calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values and negative predictive values compared with cancer registrations (gold standard), overall and by cancer site. We illustrated misclassification by the proxy in a cohort of people initiating opioid therapy. Using the proxy, we excluded people with cancer from the cohort, in an attempt to delineate people potentially using opioids for cancer rather than chronic non-cancer pain. We identified 15,679 new cancer diagnoses in 14,112 DVA clients from the cancer registry and 62,663 clients without a diagnosis. Sensitivity of the proxy based on dispensing claims was 30% for all cancers and around 20% for specific cancers (range: 10-67%). Specificity was above 90% for all cancers. The dispensing proxy correctly identified 26% of people with a cancer diagnosis who initiated opioid therapy and failed to identify 74% those with a cancer diagnosis; the proxy was most robust for clients with breast cancer where 61% were correctly identified by proxy. Using dispensing of anticancer medicines to identify people with a cancer diagnosis performed poorly. Excluding patients with evidence of anticancer medicine use from cohort studies may result removal of a disproportionate number of women with breast cancer. Researchers excluding or otherwise using anticancer medicine dispensing to identify people with cancer in pharmacoepidemiological studies should acknowledge the potential biases introduced to their findings. cancer, diagnosis, proxy, dispensing records, validation study.
ISSN:2399-4908
2399-4908
DOI:10.23889/ijpds.v5i1.1152