{"title":"Evaluation of influenza case definitions for use in real-world evidence research.","authors":"Pamela Doyon-Plourde, Élise Fortin, Caroline Quach","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Laboratory confirmation of influenza is not routinely done in practice. With the advent of big data, it is tempting to use healthcare administrative databases for influenza vaccine effectiveness studies, which often rely on clinical diagnosis codes. The objective of this article is to compare influenza incidence curves using international case definitions derived from clinical diagnostic codes with influenza surveillance data from the United States (US) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This case series describes influenza incidence by CDC week, defined using International Classification of Disease diagnostic codes over four influenza seasons (2015-2016 to 2018-2019) in a cohort of US individuals three years of age and older who consulted at least once per year between 2015 and 2019. Results were compared to the number of influenza-positive specimens or outpatient visits for influenza-like illness obtained from the CDC flu surveillance data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidence curves of influenza-related medical encounters were very similar to the CDC's surveillance data for laboratory-confirmed influenza. Conversely, the number of influenza-like illness encounters was high when influenza viruses started to circulate, leading to a discrepancy with CDC-reported data.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A specific case definition should be prioritized when data for laboratory-confirmed influenza are not available, as a broader case definition would conservatively bias influenza vaccine effectiveness toward the null.</p>","PeriodicalId":94304,"journal":{"name":"Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada","volume":"48 9","pages":"392-395"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10723760/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Laboratory confirmation of influenza is not routinely done in practice. With the advent of big data, it is tempting to use healthcare administrative databases for influenza vaccine effectiveness studies, which often rely on clinical diagnosis codes. The objective of this article is to compare influenza incidence curves using international case definitions derived from clinical diagnostic codes with influenza surveillance data from the United States (US) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Methods: This case series describes influenza incidence by CDC week, defined using International Classification of Disease diagnostic codes over four influenza seasons (2015-2016 to 2018-2019) in a cohort of US individuals three years of age and older who consulted at least once per year between 2015 and 2019. Results were compared to the number of influenza-positive specimens or outpatient visits for influenza-like illness obtained from the CDC flu surveillance data.
Results: The incidence curves of influenza-related medical encounters were very similar to the CDC's surveillance data for laboratory-confirmed influenza. Conversely, the number of influenza-like illness encounters was high when influenza viruses started to circulate, leading to a discrepancy with CDC-reported data.
Conclusion: A specific case definition should be prioritized when data for laboratory-confirmed influenza are not available, as a broader case definition would conservatively bias influenza vaccine effectiveness toward the null.