Concordance of opioid exposure in all-payer claims databases with prescription drug monitoring program database using Arkansas as a case example.

Mahashabde RV, Shrikhande MA, Han X, Martin BC, ElHassan NO, Hayes CJ. Concordance of opioid exposure in all-payer claims databases with prescription drug monitoring program database using Arkansas as a case example. Health services research. 2023 Aug 1; 58(4):938-947.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To assess the concordance between and benefit of adding prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) data to all-payer claims database (APCD) data for identifying and classifying opioid exposure among insured individuals. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Arkansas APCD and PDMP. STUDY DESIGN: Enrollees in APCD were classified as (1) true positives: if they received opioids in both databases, (2) false positives: if they only received opioids in APCD, (3) true negatives: if they had no opioid exposure in both databases, (4) false negatives: if they only received opioids in the PDMP database. Specificity, sensitivity, negative, and positive predictive values were calculated using PDMP as the "gold standard" database source. Subjects were also categorized as those who received any opioid, chronic opioid, high-dose opioid, or high-risk opioid therapies. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Arkansas residents continuously enrolled with pharmacy coverage in 2016 were included. APCD and PDMP were linked using an encrypted enrollee identifier, gender, and year of birth. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The degree of concordance in opioid exposure between the two databases among 1,411,565 enrollees was high (sensitivity  =  92.67%, specificity  =  96.13%, positive predictive value  =  91.60%, negative predictive value  =  96.65%). Enrollees classified as having any opioid (APCD: 31.64% vs. PDMP: 31.26% vs. APCD+PDMP: 33.93%), chronic opioid (APCD: 7.81% vs. PDMP: 7.54% vs. APCD+PDMP: 8.24%), high-dose opioid (APCD: 10.60% vs. PDMP: 9.62% vs. APCD+PDMP: 11.33%), or high-risk opioid (APCD: 5.28% vs. PDMP: 5.33% vs. APCD+PDMP: 6.20%) therapies, were similar using only APCD versus PDMP versus the combined APCD and PDMP data sources. CONCLUSIONS: Claims data sources, such as APCDs, are fairly accurate in identifying opioid exposure and the level of opioid exposure among persons with continuous pharmacy coverage.