Validating claims-based definitions for deprescribing: Bridging the gap between clinical and administrative data

BackgroundLimited research has evaluated the validity of claims-based definitions for deprescribing. ObjectivesEvaluate the validity of claims-based definitions of deprescribing against electronic health records (EHRs) for deprescribing of benzodiazepines (BZDs) after a fall-related hospitalization. MethodsWe used a novel data linkage between Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) and Part D with our health system's EHR. We identified patients aged >= 66 years with a fall-related hospitalization, continuous enrollment in Medicare FFS and Part D for 6 months pre- and post-hospitalization, and >= 2 BZD fills in the 6 months pre-hospitalization. Using a standardized EHR abstraction tool, we adjudicated deprescribing for a sub-sample with a fall-related hospitalization at UNC. We evaluated the validity of claims-based deprescribing definitions (e.g., gaps in supply, dosage reductions) versus chart review using sensitivity and specificity. ResultsAmong 257 patients in the overall sample, 44% were aged 66-74 years, 35% had Medicare low-income subsidy, 79% were female. Among claims-based definitions using gaps in supply, the prevalence of BZD deprescribing ranged from 8.2% (no refills) to 36.6% (30-day gap). When incorporating dosage, the prevalence ranged from 55.3% to 65.8%. Among the validation sub-sample (n = 47), approximately one-third had BZDs deprescribed in the EHR. Compared to EHR, gaps in supply from claims had good sensitivity, but poor specificity. Incorporating dosage increased sensitivity, but worsened specificity. ConclusionsThe sensitivity of claims-based definitions for deprescribing of BZDs was low; however, the specificity of a 90-day gap was >90%. Replication in other EHRs and for other low-value medications is needed to guide future deprescribing research.