RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Population-based drug-related anaphylaxis in children and adolescents captured by South Carolina Emergency Room Hospital Discharge Database (SCERHDD) (2000-2002)
West, S., D'Aloisio, AA., Ringel-Kulka, T., Waller, AE., & Bordley, WC. (2007). Population-based drug-related anaphylaxis in children and adolescents captured by South Carolina Emergency Room Hospital Discharge Database (SCERHDD) (2000-2002). Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 16(12), 1255-1267.
PURPOSE: Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening condition; drug-related anaphylaxis represents approximately 10% of all cases. We assessed the utility of a statewide emergency department (ED) database for identifying drug-related anaphylaxis in children by developing and validating an algorithm composed of ICD-9-CM codes. METHODS: There were 1 314,760 visits to South Carolina (SC) emergency departments (EDs) for patients <19 years in 2000-2002. We used ICD-9-CM disease or external cause of injury codes (E-codes) that suggested drug-related anaphylaxis or a severe drug-related allergic reaction. We found 50 cases classifiable as probable or possible drug-related anaphylaxis and 13 as drug-related allergic reactions. We used clinical evaluation by two pediatricians as the 'alloyed gold standard'1 for estimating sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of our algorithm. RESULTS: ED-treated drug-related anaphylaxis in the SC pediatric population was 1.56/100,000 person-years based on the algorithm and 0.50/100,000 person-years based on clinical evaluation. Assuming the disease codes we used identified all potential anaphylaxis cases in the database, the sensitivity was 1.00 (95%CI: 0.79, 1.00), specificity was 0.28 (95%CI: 0.16, 0.43), and the PPV was 0.32 (0.20, 0.47) for the algorithm. Sensitivity analyses improved the measurement properties of the algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: E-codes were invaluable for developing an anaphylaxis algorithm although the frequently used code of E947.9 was often incorrectly applied. We believe that our algorithm may have over-ascertained drug-related anaphylaxis patients seen in an ED, but the clinical evaluation may have under-represented this diagnosis due to limited information on the offending agent in the abstracted ED records. Post-marketing drug surveillance using ED records may be viable if clinicians were to document drug-related anaphylaxis in the charts so that billing codes could be assigned properly