Possible minor glitch in CVX data?

Vocabulary Users
1

PCV21 was approved by the FDA about two years ago and it is currently explicitly recommended on the CDC website. However, Athena shows it as “non-standard”.

There are valid Classification concepts for it in the RxNorm and SPL vocabularies as well as Quant Branded Drug and Quant Clinical Drug concepts in RxNorm.

Is this a minor problem that can be corrected?

2

Hi @Pulver

Follow the Maps to. The reason it’s not-Standard is the result of the deduplication work, so it’s mapped over to the RxNorm Standard counterpart. I know it’s not obvious, because the CVX guy doesn’t explicitly define the composition of ingredients, while the RxNorm one has the explicit list and also implies the Drug Form. This is what we call downhill mapping - one of the compromises we need to live with to support the unified representation, even though it requires some level of assumption and implied logic.

4

I am still confused. I thought that as both as CVX and RxNorm vocabularies are standard vocabularies both the Quantified Clinical Drug (RxNorm) and CVX (CVX) concept class representation of a vaccine would be standard. As this is true for all of the other Pneumonia vaccines, why should PCV21 be inconsistent?

5

Hi @Pulver, you’re right, except that a minor CVX-RxNorm deduplication job took place years ago. It’s described here in a proposal that was never fully implemented.
It must be true for all CVX concepts. If it doesn’t seem so, it’s either something that we missed, or other pneumococcal vaccines don’t have a good consolidated concept for mapping. I’m guessing now, but it might be a one-vs-many problem. If you happened to have more than one drug form, how would you choose one over the others?