Validating use of diagnostic codes in Canadian administrative data for identification of adverse drug events

Abstract

AimsWhile diagnostic codes from administrative health data might be a valuable source to identify adverse drug events (ADEs), their ability to identify unintended harms remains unclear. We validated claims‐based diagnosis codes for ADEs based on events identified in a prospective cohort study and assessed whether key attributes predicted their documentation in administrative data.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of 3 prospective cohorts in British Columbia, from 2008 to 2015 (n = 13 969). We linked prospectively identified ADEs to administrative insurance data to examine the sensitivity and specificity of different diagnostic code schemes. We used logistic regression to assess which key attributes (e.g., type of event, symptoms and culprit medications) were associated with better documentation of ADEs in administrative data.ResultsAmong 1178 diagnosed events, the sensitivity of the diagnostic codes in administrative data ranged from 3.4 to 52.6%, depending on the database and codes used. We found that documentation was worse for certain types of ADEs (dose‐related: odds ratio [OR]: 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15, 0.69; nonadherence events (OR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.62), and better for those experiencing arrhythmias (OR: 4.19, 95% CI: 0.96, 18.28).ConclusionADEs were not well documented in administrative data. Alternative methods should be explored to capture ADEs for health research.