Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Drug exposure misclassification in pharmacoepidemiology: Sources and relative impact.
Hempenius, Mirjam; Groenwold, Rolf H H; de Boer, Anthonius; Klungel, Olaf H; Gardarsdottir, Helga.
Afiliação
  • Hempenius M; Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Groenwold RHH; Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
  • de Boer A; Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Klungel OH; Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
  • Gardarsdottir H; Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf ; 30(12): 1703-1715, 2021 12.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34396634
BACKGROUND: Drug exposure assessment based on dispensing data can be misclassified when patients do not adhere to their therapy or when information about over-the-counter drugs is not captured in the study database. Previous research has considered hypothetical sensitivity and specificity values, whereas this study aims to assess the impact of literature-based real values of exposure misclassification. METHODS: A synthetic cohort study was constructed based on the proportion of exposure theoretically captured in a database (range 0.5-1.0) and the level of adherence (0.5-1.0). Three scenarios were explored: nondifferential misclassification, differential misclassification (misclassifications dependent on an unmeasured risk factor doubling the outcome risk), and nondifferential misclassification in a comparative effectiveness study (RRA and RRB both 2.0 compared to nonuse, RRA-B 1.0). RESULTS: For the scenarios with nondifferential misclassification, 25% nonadherence or 25% uncaptured exposure changed the RR from 2.0 to 1.75, and 1.95, respectively. Applying different proportions of nonadherence or uncaptured use (20% vs. 40%) for subgroups with and without the risk factor, an RR of 0.95 was observed in the absence of a true effect (i.e., true RR = 1). In the comparative effectiveness study, no effect on RR was seen for different proportions of uncaptured exposure; however, different levels of nonadherence for the drugs (20% vs. 40%) led to an underestimation of RRA-B (0.89). DISCUSSION: All scenarios led to biased estimates, but the magnitude of the bias differed across scenarios. When testing the robustness of findings of pharmacoepidemiologic studies, we recommend using realistic values of nonadherence and uncaptured exposure based on real-world data.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Preparações Farmacêuticas / Farmacoepidemiologia Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Assunto da revista: EPIDEMIOLOGIA / TERAPIA POR MEDICAMENTOS Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Holanda

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Preparações Farmacêuticas / Farmacoepidemiologia Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Incidence_studies / Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Assunto da revista: EPIDEMIOLOGIA / TERAPIA POR MEDICAMENTOS Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Holanda