{"doi":"10.1016/j.chest.2024.01.020","title":"Performance of Claims-Based Algorithms for Adherence to Positive Airway Pressure Therapy in Commercially Insured Patients With OSA","abstract":"BACKGROUND: Positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy is first-line therapy for OSA, but consistent use is required for it to be effective. Previous studies have used Medicare fee-for-service claims data (eg, device, equipment charges) as a proxy for PAP adherence to assess its effects. However, this approach has not been validated in a US commercially insured population, where coverage rules are not standardized. RESEARCH QUESTION: In a commercially insured population in the United States, how well do claims-based algorithms for defining PAP adherence correspond with objective PAP device usage? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Deidentified administrative claims data of commercially insured patients (aged 18-64 years) with OSA were linked to objective PAP therapy usage data from cloud-connected devices. Adherence was defined based on device use (using an extension of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 90-day compliance criteria) and from claims-based algorithms to compare usage metrics and identify potential misclassifications. RESULTS: The final sample included 213,341 patients. Based on device usage, 48% were adherent in the first year. Based on claims, between 10% and 84% of patients were identified as adherent (accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity ranges: 53%-68%, 12%-95%, and 26%-92%, respectively). Relative to patients who were claims-adherent, patients who were device-adherent had consistently higher usage across all metrics (mean, 339.9 vs 260.0-290.0 days of use; 6.6 vs 5.1-5.6 d/wk; 6.4 vs 4.6-5.2 h/d). Consistent PAP users were frequently identified by claims-based algorithms as nonadherent, whereas many inconsistent users were classified by claims-based algorithms as adherent. INTERPRETATION: In aggregate US commercial data with nonstandardized PAP coverage rules, concordance between existing claims-based definitions and objective PAP use was low. Caution is warranted when applying existing claims-based algorithms to commercial populations.","journal":"CHEST Journal","year":2024,"id":444008,"datarank":0.0,"base_score":0.0,"endowment":0.0,"self_citation_contribution":0.0,"citation_network_contribution":0.0,"self_endowment_contribution":0.0,"citer_contribution":0.0,"corpus_percentile":null,"corpus_rank":null,"citation_count":7,"citer_count":0,"citers_with_citation_signal":0,"citers_with_endowment":0,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":false,"is_dataset_confidence":0.9541,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":true,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":"2024-01-01","fair_score":null,"fair_percentile":null,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":1038985,"name":"Kate Cole","orcid":"0000-0001-9008-9229","position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1259602,"name":"R Benjamin Dexter","orcid":null,"position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":791270,"name":"K.L. Sterling","orcid":"0000-0002-6482-3562","position":3,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":863312,"name":"Emerson M. Wickwire","orcid":"0000-0002-2858-7742","position":4,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":385910,"name":"Naomi Alpert","orcid":"0000-0002-3625-9693","position":0,"is_corresponding":true}],"reference_count":33,"raw_metadata":null,"created_at":"2026-07-19T02:01:33.526738Z","pmid":"38215934","pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":null,"fair_a":null,"fair_i":null,"fair_r":null,"fair_zscore":null,"fair_rationale":null,"fair_model":null,"fair_agent_version":null,"fair_fulltext_source":null,"fair_has_llm":null,"fair_computed_at":null,"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}