The ICD-9 to ICD-10 transition has not improved identification of rapidly progressing stage 3 and stage 4 chronic kidney disease patients: a diagnostic test study

Abstract

Abstract Background The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding system is the industry standard tool for billing, disease classification, and epidemiology purposes. Prior research has demonstrated ICD codes to have poor accuracy, particularly in relation to rapidly progressing chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. In 2016, the ICD system moved to revision 10. This study examines subjects in a large insurer database to determine the accuracy of ICD-10 CKD-staging codes to diagnose patients rapidly progressing towards end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Patients and methods Serial observations of outpatient serum creatinine measurements from 2016 to 2021 of 315,903 patients were transformed to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to identify CKD stage-3 and advanced patients diagnosed clinically (eGFR-CKD). CKD-staging codes from the same time period of 59,386 patients and used to identify stage-3 and advanced patients diagnosed by ICD-code (ICD-CKD). eGFR-CKD and ICD-CKD diagnostic accuracy was compared between a total of 334,610 patients. Results 5,618 patients qualified for the progression analysis; 72 were identified as eGFR rapid progressors; 718 had multiple codes to qualify as ICD rapid progressors. Sensitivity was 5.56%, with positive predictive value (PPV) 5.6%. 34,858 patients were diagnosed as eGFR-CKD stage-3 patients; 17,549 were also diagnosed as ICD-CKD stage-3 patients, for a sensitivity of 50.34%, with PPV of 58.71%. 4,069 patients reached eGFR-CKD stage-4 with 2,750 ICD-CKD stage-4 patients, giving a sensitivity of 67.58%, PPV of 42.43%. 959 patients reached eGFR-CKD stage-5 with 566 ICD-CKD stage-5 patients, giving a sensitivity of 59.02%, PPV of 35.85%. Conclusion This research shows that recent ICD revisions have not improved identification of rapid progressors in diagnostic accuracy, although marked increases in sensitivity for stage-3 (50.34% vs. 24.68%), and PPV in stage-3 (58.71% vs. 40.08%), stage-4 (42.43% vs. 18.52%), and stage-5 (35.85% vs. 4.51%) were observed. However, sensitivity in stage-5 compares poorly (59.02% vs. 91.05%).