Not just a carrier: Clinical presentation and management of patients with heterozygous disease-causing alkaline phosphatase (ALPL) variants identified through expanded carrier screening.

Hypophosphatasia (HPP) is an underrecognized, complex bone mineralization disorder with variable manifestations caused by one or two deleterious variants in the alkaline phosphatase (ALPL) gene. Expanded carrier screening (ECS), inclusive of ALPL, intends to inform reproductive risk but may incidentally reveal an HPP diagnosis with 50% familial risks. We sought to investigate at-risk individuals and develop a multidisciplinary referral and evaluation protocol for ECS-identified ALPL heterozygosity. A retrospective database query of ECS results from 8 years to 1 month for heterozygous pathogenic/likely pathogenic ALPL variants was completed. We implemented a clinical protocol for diagnostic testing and imaging, counseling, and interdisciplinary care management for identified patients, and outcomes were documented. Heterozygous ALPL variants were identified in 12/2248 unrelated patients undergoing ECS (0.53%; heterozygote frequency 1/187). Of 10 individuals successfully contacted, all demonstrated symptomatology and/or alkaline phosphatase values consistent with HPP. ECS may reveal incidental health risks, including recognition of missed HPP diagnoses in ALPL heterozygotes. In our cohort, all ECS-identified ALPL heterozygotes with clinical and/or biochemical data available demonstrated features of HPP. Referral to a genetics professional familiar with HPP is indicated for family history assessment, genetic counseling, cascade testing, and long-term bone health management.

Acute Myocardial Infarction Cohorts Defined by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision Versus Diagnosis-Related Groups: Analysis of Diagnostic Agreement and Quality Measures in an Integrated Health System.

BACKGROUND: Among Medicare value-based payment programs for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program uses International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes to identify the program denominator, while the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced program uses diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). The extent to which these programs target similar patients, whether they target the intended population (type 1 myocardial infarction), and whether outcomes are comparable between cohorts is not known. METHODS: In a retrospective study of 2176 patients hospitalized in an integrated health system, a cohort of patients assigned a principal ICD-10 diagnosis of AMI and a cohort of patients assigned an AMI DRG were compared according to patient-level agreement and outcomes such as mortality and readmission. RESULTS: One thousand nine hundred thirty-five patients were included in the ICD-10 cohort compared with 662 patients in the DRG cohort. Only 421 patients were included in both AMI cohorts (19.3% agreement). DRG cohort patients were older (70 versus 65 years, P<0.001), more often female (48% versus 30%, P<0.001), and had higher rates of heart failure (52% versus 33%, P<0.001) and kidney disease (42% versus 25%, P<0.001). Comparing outcomes, the DRG cohort had significantly higher unadjusted rates of 30-day mortality (6.6% versus 2.5%, P<0.001), 1-year mortality (21% versus 8%, P<0.001), and 90-day readmission (26% versus 19%, P=0.006) than the ICD-10 cohort. Two observations help explain these differences: 61% of ICD-10 cohort patients were assigned procedural DRGs for revascularization instead of an AMI DRG, and type 1 myocardial infarction patients made up a smaller proportion of the DRG cohort (34%) than the ICD-10 cohort (78%). CONCLUSIONS: The method used to identify denominators for value-based payment programs has important implications for the patient characteristics and outcomes of the populations. As national and local quality initiatives mature, an emphasis on ICD-10 codes to define AMI cohorts would better represent type 1 myocardial infarction patients.