Semantic computational analysis of anticoagulation use in atrial fibrillation from real world data - Bean, Daniel M.; Teo, James; Wu, Honghan; Oliveira, Ricardo; Patel, Raj; Bendayan, Rebecca; Shah, Ajay M.; Dobson, Richard J. B.; Scott, Paul A. (medRxiv, 2019)
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia and significantly increases stroke risk. This risk is effectively managed by oral anticoagulation. Recent studies using national registry data indicate increased use of anticoagulation resulting from changes in guidelines and the availability of newer drugs.The aim of this study is to develop and validate an open source risk scoring pipeline for free-text electronic health record data using natural language processing.AF patients discharged from 1st January 2011 to 1st October 2017 were identified from discharge summaries (N=10,030, 64.6% male, average age 75.3 ± 12.3 years). A natural language processing pipeline was developed to identify risk factors in clinical text and calculate risk for ischaemic stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc) and bleeding (HAS-BLED). Scores were validated vs two independent experts for 40 patients.Automatic risk scores were in strong agreement with the two independent experts for CHA2DS2-VASc (average kappa 0.78 vs experts, compared to 0.85 between experts). Agreement was lower for HAS-BLED (average kappa 0.54 vs experts, compared to 0.74 between experts).In high-risk patients (CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2) OAC use has increased significantly over the last 7 years, driven by the availability of DOACs and the transitioning of patients from AP medication alone to OAC. Factors independently associated with OAC use included components of the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores as well as discharging specialty and frailty. OAC use was highest in patients discharged under cardiology (69%).Electronic health record text can be used for automatic calculation of clinical risk scores at scale. Open source tools are available today for this task but require further validation. Analysis of routinely-collected EHR data can replicate findings from large-scale curated registries.Competing Interest StatementI have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Dr. Teo reports non-financial support from Bayer, grants from Bristol-Meyers-Squibb, outside the submitted work; Dr. scott reports personal fees from Bayer, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare that no competing interests exist. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.Funding StatementDMB is funded by a UKRI Innovation Fellowship as part of Health Data Research UK MR/S00310X/1 (https://www.hdruk.ac.uk). HW is funded by a UKRI Rutherford Fellowship as part of Health Data Research UK MR/S004149/1. RB is funded in part by grant MR/R016372/1 for the King’s College London MRC Skills Development Fellowship programme funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC, https://mrc.ukri.org) and by grant IS-BRC-1215-20018 for the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR, https://www.nihr.ac.uk) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. AMS is supported by the British Heart Foundation (https://www.bhf.org.uk). NIHR Biomedical Research Centre funding to SLAM/KCL and to GSTT/KCL in partnership with KCL. RJBD is supported by: 1. Health Data Research UK, which is funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation and Wellcome Trust. 2. The BigData@Heart Consortium, funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative-2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No. 116074. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme and EFPIA; it is chaired, by DE Grobbee and SD Anker, partnering with 20 academic and industry partners and ESC. 3. The National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. 4. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. This paper represents independent research part funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesSource text from patient records used in the study will not be available due to inability to fully anonymise up to the Information Commissioner Office (ICO) standards and would be likely to contain strong identifiers (e.g. names, postcodes) and highly sensitive data (e.g. diagnoses). A subset of the dataset limited to anonymisable information (e.g. only UMLS codes and demographics) is available on request to researchers with suitable training in information governance and human confidentiality protocols subject to approval by the King’s College Hospital Information Governance committee; applications for research access should be sent to kch-tr.cogstackrequests@nhs.net. This dataset cannot be released publicly due to the risk of re-identification of such granular individual-level data, as determined by the King’s College Hospital Caldicott Guardian. All code for calculating risk scores is open-source in GitHub at "https://github.com/CogStack/risk-score-builder".AFatrial fibrillationAPantiplateletDOACdirect oral anticoagulantEHRelectronic health recordNLPnatural language processingOACoral anticoagulant