Real-world data sources can facilitate essential understanding of the epidemiological features of anaphylaxis. However, the accuracy of case-identifying definitions based on diagnosis codes for anaphylaxis in healthcare databases remains understudied. We conducted a cross-sectional study analyzing claims data from the largest multi-institutional healthcare system in Taiwan during 2017-2021. We included patients with incident anaphylaxis identified by either ICD-10-CM codes for anaphylaxis (Group 1) or ICD-10-CM codes for severe allergic or drug adverse events and additional modifier codes for acute allergy events (Group 2). We randomly selected 20% of the cases to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of anaphylaxis case-identifying definitions in Groups 1 and 2 after review of electronic medical records by two physicians. From the original cohort (n = 2,176), we randomly selected 433 patients with either a diagnosis of anaphylaxis (Group 1), or a diagnosis of severe allergic and drug adverse events with additional modifier codes for acute allergy events (Group 2). In Group 1, we judged 135 / 170 patients as true anaphylaxis cases, giving a PPV of 79.4% (95% CI: 73.3-85.5). In Group 2, we judged 47 / 263 patients as true anaphylaxis cases, giving a PPV of 17.9% (95% CI: 13.3-22.5). In conclusion, acceptable PPVs were observed when anaphylaxis cases were identified by ICD-10-CM codes for anaphylaxis, but not by ICD-10-CM codes for severe allergic or drug adverse event with additional modifier codes for acute allergy events. Our multi-institutional findings could serve as a fundamental reference for further studies of anaphylaxis based on real-world healthcare databases.
Keywords: Anaphylaxis; Chang Gung Research Database; Electronic medical records; ICD-10-CM codes; Positive predictive values.
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.