Validation of serostatus of rheumatoid arthritis using ICD‐10 codes in administrative claims data

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the accuracy of International Classification of Diseases‐ Tenth Revision (ICD‐10) diagnosis codes for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) serostatus using a U.S. claims database (Optum Clinformatics Data Mart, Optum) and to compare the results to a previous validation study performed in IBM Marketscan Research Database (sensitivity 73%, positive predictive value, PPV, 84%).

Methods

In Optum (01/01/2016–03/31/2020) linked with laboratory results, we selected RA patients based on ≥2 ICD‐10 diagnosis codes for RA (M05 or M06) and at least one dispensing of RA treatments. We included individuals with at least one laboratory result for rheumatoid factor (RF) or anti‐cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) performed 365 days prior to and including the cohort entry date. An individual was “seropositive” if at least one of the 2 diagnosis codes used to define RA status was M05. “Seronegative” patients were required to have only M06. Secondary analyses were performed using subsets of M05 and M06 diagnosis codes. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and kappa of M05 and M06 against the prespecified reference standard laboratory data.

Results

We identified 14 490 adult RA patients who had at least 1 RF or anti‐CCP result. The number of patients identified for each reference standard definition ranged from 3315 (reference standard definition: high + anti‐CCP) to 13 636 (any + RF). PPV for seropositive RA, M05, was 77.1%. The PPV of M06 for seronegative RA was 61.6%. When we applied more restricted definitions of M05 and M06, the PPV for seropositive RA increased to 79.2%. The PPV for seronegative RA also notably increased to 89.5%.

Conclusion

ICD‐10 codes (M05 and M06) can help identify RA serostatus in claims data, but their limitations should be acknowledged. The PPVs for seropositive and seronegative RA found in the Optum database were lower than those found in MarketScan, perhaps related to database variability or differing patient characteristics and clinical practice. When more restricted definitions of M05 and M06 were used, the PPVs for seropositive and seronegative RA improved to 79.2% and 89.5%, respectively.