Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 105
Filtrar
1.
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol ; 120: 104866, 2021 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33454352

RESUMO

Many observational studies explore the association between acetaminophen and cancer, but known limitations such as vulnerability to channeling, protopathic bias, and uncontrolled confounding hamper the interpretability of results. To help understand the potential magnitude of bias, we identify key design choices in these observational studies and specify 10 study design variants that represent different combinations of these design choices. We evaluate these variants by applying them to 37 negative controls - outcome presumed not to be caused by acetaminophen - as well as 4 cancer outcomes in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database. The estimated odds and hazards ratios for the negative controls show substantial bias in the evaluated design variants, with far fewer of the 95% confidence intervals containing 1 than the nominal 95% expected for negative controls. The effect-size estimates for the cancer outcomes are comparable to those observed for the negative controls. A comparison of exposed and unexposed reveals many differences at baseline for which most studies do not correct. We observe that the design choices made in many of the published observational studies can lead to substantial bias. Thus, caution in the interpretation of published studies of acetaminophen and cancer is recommended.

2.
Lancet Digit Health ; 3(2): e98-e114, 2021 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33342753

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been postulated to affect susceptibility to COVID-19. Observational studies so far have lacked rigorous ascertainment adjustment and international generalisability. We aimed to determine whether use of ACEIs or ARBs is associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in patients with hypertension. METHODS: In this international, open science, cohort analysis, we used electronic health records from Spain (Information Systems for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]) and the USA (Columbia University Irving Medical Center data warehouse [CUIMC] and Department of Veterans Affairs Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership [VA-OMOP]) to identify patients aged 18 years or older with at least one prescription for ACEIs and ARBs (target cohort) or calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics (THZs; comparator cohort) between Nov 1, 2019, and Jan 31, 2020. Users were defined separately as receiving either monotherapy with these four drug classes, or monotherapy or combination therapy (combination use) with other antihypertensive medications. We assessed four outcomes: COVID-19 diagnosis; hospital admission with COVID-19; hospital admission with pneumonia; and hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis. We built large-scale propensity score methods derived through a data-driven approach and negative control experiments across ten pairwise comparisons, with results meta-analysed to generate 1280 study effects. For each study effect, we did negative control outcome experiments using a possible 123 controls identified through a data-rich algorithm. This process used a set of predefined baseline patient characteristics to provide the most accurate prediction of treatment and balance among patient cohorts across characteristics. The study is registered with the EU Post-Authorisation Studies register, EUPAS35296. FINDINGS: Among 1 355 349 antihypertensive users (363 785 ACEI or ARB monotherapy users, 248 915 CCB or THZ monotherapy users, 711 799 ACEI or ARB combination users, and 473 076 CCB or THZ combination users) included in analyses, no association was observed between COVID-19 diagnosis and exposure to ACEI or ARB monotherapy versus CCB or THZ monotherapy (calibrated hazard ratio [HR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·84-1·14) or combination use exposure (1·01, 0·90-1·15). ACEIs alone similarly showed no relative risk difference when compared with CCB or THZ monotherapy (HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·68-1·21; with heterogeneity of >40%) or combination use (0·95, 0·83-1·07). Directly comparing ACEIs with ARBs demonstrated a moderately lower risk with ACEIs, which was significant with combination use (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·79-0·99) and non-significant for monotherapy (0·85, 0·69-1·05). We observed no significant difference between drug classes for risk of hospital admission with COVID-19, hospital admission with pneumonia, or hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis across all comparisons. INTERPRETATION: No clinically significant increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis or hospital admission-related outcomes associated with ACEI or ARB use was observed, suggesting users should not discontinue or change their treatment to decrease their risk of COVID-19. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research, US National Institutes of Health, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, South Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare Republic, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and European Health Data and Evidence Network.

4.
J Am Med Inform Assoc ; 27(8): 1331-1337, 2020 Aug 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32909033

RESUMO

Evidence derived from existing health-care data, such as administrative claims and electronic health records, can fill evidence gaps in medicine. However, many claim such data cannot be used to estimate causal treatment effects because of the potential for observational study bias; for example, due to residual confounding. Other concerns include P hacking and publication bias. In response, the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics international collaborative launched the Large-scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation across a Network of Databases (LEGEND) research initiative. Its mission is to generate evidence on the effects of medical interventions using observational health-care databases while addressing the aforementioned concerns by following a recently proposed paradigm. We define 10 principles of LEGEND that enshrine this new paradigm, prescribing the generation and dissemination of evidence on many research questions at once; for example, comparing all treatments for a disease for many outcomes, thus preventing publication bias. These questions are answered using a prespecified and systematic approach, avoiding P hacking. Best-practice statistical methods address measured confounding, and control questions (research questions where the answer is known) quantify potential residual bias. Finally, the evidence is generated in a network of databases to assess consistency by sharing open-source analytics code to enhance transparency and reproducibility, but without sharing patient-level information. Here we detail the LEGEND principles and provide a generic overview of a LEGEND study. Our companion paper highlights an example study on the effects of hypertension treatments, and evaluates the internal and external validity of the evidence we generate.

5.
J Am Med Inform Assoc ; 27(8): 1268-1277, 2020 Aug 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32827027

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the application of the Large-scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation across a Network of Databases (LEGEND) principles described in our companion article to hypertension treatments and assess internal and external validity of the generated evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: LEGEND defines a process for high-quality observational research based on 10 guiding principles. We demonstrate how this process, here implemented through large-scale propensity score modeling, negative and positive control questions, empirical calibration, and full transparency, can be applied to compare antihypertensive drug therapies. We assess internal validity through covariate balance, confidence-interval coverage, between-database heterogeneity, and transitivity of results. We assess external validity through comparison to direct meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: From 21.6 million unique antihypertensive new users, we generate 6 076 775 effect size estimates for 699 872 research questions on 12 946 treatment comparisons. Through propensity score matching, we achieve balance on all baseline patient characteristics for 75% of estimates, observe 95.7% coverage in our effect-estimate 95% confidence intervals, find high between-database consistency, and achieve transitivity in 84.8% of triplet hypotheses. Compared with meta-analyses of RCTs, our results are consistent with 28 of 30 comparisons while providing narrower confidence intervals. CONCLUSION: We find that these LEGEND results show high internal validity and are congruent with meta-analyses of RCTs. For these reasons we believe that evidence generated by LEGEND is of high quality and can inform medical decision-making where evidence is currently lacking. Subsequent publications will explore the clinical interpretations of this evidence.

6.
Sci Rep ; 10(1): 11115, 2020 07 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32632237

RESUMO

Alendronate and raloxifene are among the most popular anti-osteoporosis medications. However, there is a lack of head-to-head comparative effectiveness studies comparing the two treatments. We conducted a retrospective large-scale multicenter study encompassing over 300 million patients across nine databases encoded in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM). The primary outcome was the incidence of osteoporotic hip fracture, while secondary outcomes were vertebral fracture, atypical femoral fracture (AFF), osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), and esophageal cancer. We used propensity score trimming and stratification based on an expansive propensity score model with all pre-treatment patient characteritistcs. We accounted for unmeasured confounding using negative control outcomes to estimate and adjust for residual systematic bias in each data source. We identified 283,586 alendronate patients and 40,463 raloxifene patients. There were 7.48 hip fracture, 8.18 vertebral fracture, 1.14 AFF, 0.21 esophageal cancer and 0.09 ONJ events per 1,000 person-years in the alendronate cohort and 6.62, 7.36, 0.69, 0.22 and 0.06 events per 1,000 person-years, respectively, in the raloxifene cohort. Alendronate and raloxifene have a similar hip fracture risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.13), but alendronate users are more likely to have vertebral fractures (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14). Alendronate has higher risk for AFF (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.23-1.84) but similar risk for esophageal cancer (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.53-1.70), and ONJ (HR 1.62, 95% CI 0.78-3.34). We demonstrated substantial control of measured confounding by propensity score adjustment, and minimal residual systematic bias through negative control experiments, lending credibility to our effect estimates. Raloxifene is as effective as alendronate and may remain an option in the prevention of osteoporotic fracture.

7.
J Am Med Inform Assoc ; 27(7): 1028-1036, 2020 Jul 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32626900

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: We developed and evaluated a privacy-preserving One-shot Distributed Algorithm to fit a multicenter Cox proportional hazards model (ODAC) without sharing patient-level information across sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using patient-level data from a single site combined with only aggregated information from other sites, we constructed a surrogate likelihood function, approximating the Cox partial likelihood function obtained using patient-level data from all sites. By maximizing the surrogate likelihood function, each site obtained a local estimate of the model parameter, and the ODAC estimator was constructed as a weighted average of all the local estimates. We evaluated the performance of ODAC with (1) a simulation study and (2) a real-world use case study using 4 datasets from the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics network. RESULTS: On the one hand, our simulation study showed that ODAC provided estimates nearly the same as the estimator obtained by analyzing, in a single dataset, the combined patient-level data from all sites (ie, the pooled estimator). The relative bias was <0.1% across all scenarios. The accuracy of ODAC remained high across different sample sizes and event rates. On the other hand, the meta-analysis estimator, which was obtained by the inverse variance weighted average of the site-specific estimates, had substantial bias when the event rate is <5%, with the relative bias reaching 20% when the event rate is 1%. In the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics network application, the ODAC estimates have a relative bias <5% for 15 out of 16 log hazard ratios, whereas the meta-analysis estimates had substantially higher bias than ODAC. CONCLUSIONS: ODAC is a privacy-preserving and noniterative method for implementing time-to-event analyses across multiple sites. It provides estimates on par with the pooled estimator and substantially outperforms the meta-analysis estimator when the event is uncommon, making it extremely suitable for studying rare events and diseases in a distributed manner.

8.
Drug Saf ; 43(9): 927-942, 2020 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32500272

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Observational studies estimating severe outcomes for paracetamol versus ibuprofen use have acknowledged the specific challenge of channeling bias. A previous study relying on negative controls suggested that using large-scale propensity score (LSPS) matching may mitigate bias better than models using limited lists of covariates. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess whether using LSPS matching would enable the evaluation of paracetamol, compared to ibuprofen, and increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, or acute renal failure. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In a new-user cohort study, we used two propensity score model strategies for confounder controls. One replicated the approach of controlling for a hand-picked list. The second used LSPSs based on all available covariates for matching. Positive and negative controls assessed residual confounding and calibrated confidence intervals. The data source was the Clinical Practices Research Datalink (CPRD). RESULTS: A substantial proportion of negative controls were statistically significant after propensity score matching on the publication covariates, indicating considerable systematic error. LSPS adjustment was less biased, but residual error remained. The calibrated estimates resulted in very wide confidence intervals, indicating large uncertainty in effect estimates once residual error was incorporated. CONCLUSIONS: For paracetamol versus ibuprofen, when using LSPS methods in the CPRD, it is only possible to distinguish true effects if those effects are large (hazard ratio > 2). Due to their smaller hazard ratios, the outcomes under study cannot be differentiated from null effects (represented by negative controls) even if there were a true effect. Based on these data, we conclude that we are unable to determine whether paracetamol is associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, GI bleeding, and acute renal failure compared to ibuprofen, due to residual confounding.

10.
medRxiv ; 2020 Jun 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32587982

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) could influence infection risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Observational studies to date lack pre-specification, transparency, rigorous ascertainment adjustment and international generalizability, with contradictory results. METHODS: Using electronic health records from Spain (SIDIAP) and the United States (Columbia University Irving Medical Center and Department of Veterans Affairs), we conducted a systematic cohort study with prevalent ACE, ARB, calcium channel blocker (CCB) and thiazide diuretic (THZ) use to determine relative risk of COVID-19 diagnosis and related hospitalization outcomes. The study addressed confounding through large-scale propensity score adjustment and negative control experiments. RESULTS: Following over 1.1 million antihypertensive users identified between November 2019 and January 2020, we observed no significant difference in relative COVID-19 diagnosis risk comparing ACE/ARB vs CCB/THZ monotherapy (hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% CI 0.84 - 1.14), nor any difference for mono/combination use (1.01; 0.90 - 1.15). ACE alone and ARB alone similarly showed no relative risk difference when compared to CCB/THZ monotherapy or mono/combination use. Directly comparing ACE vs. ARB demonstrated a moderately lower risk with ACE, non-significant for monotherapy (0.85; 0.69 - 1.05) and marginally significant for mono/combination users (0.88; 0.79 - 0.99). We observed, however, no significant difference between drug- classes for COVID-19 hospitalization or pneumonia risk across all comparisons. CONCLUSION: There is no clinically significant increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis or hospitalization with ACE or ARB use. Users should not discontinue or change their treatment to avoid COVID-19.

11.
JAMA Intern Med ; 180(4): 542-551, 2020 04 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32065600

RESUMO

Importance: Chlorthalidone is currently recommended as the preferred thiazide diuretic to treat hypertension, but no trials have directly compared risks and benefits. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide as first-line therapies for hypertension in real-world practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a Large-Scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation in a Network of Databases (LEGEND) observational comparative cohort study with large-scale propensity score stratification and negative-control and synthetic positive-control calibration on databases spanning January 2001 through December 2018. Outpatient and inpatient care episodes of first-time users of antihypertensive monotherapy in the United States based on 2 administrative claims databases and 1 collection of electronic health records were analyzed. Analysis began June 2018. Exposures: Chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were acute myocardial infarction, hospitalization for heart failure, ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, and a composite cardiovascular disease outcome including the first 3 outcomes and sudden cardiac death. Fifty-one safety outcomes were measured. Results: Of 730 225 individuals (mean [SD] age, 51.5 [13.3] years; 450 100 women [61.6%]), 36 918 were dispensed or prescribed chlorthalidone and had 149 composite outcome events, and 693 337 were dispensed or prescribed hydrochlorothiazide and had 3089 composite outcome events. No significant difference was found in the associated risk of myocardial infarction, hospitalized heart failure, or stroke, with a calibrated hazard ratio for the composite cardiovascular outcome of 1.00 for chlorthalidone compared with hydrochlorothiazide (95% CI, 0.85-1.17). Chlorthalidone was associated with a significantly higher risk of hypokalemia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.72; 95% CI, 2.38-3.12), hyponatremia (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.16-1.47), acute renal failure (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.15-1.63), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09-1.42), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.30). Chlorthalidone was associated with a significantly lower risk of diagnosed abnormal weight gain (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that chlorthalidone use was not associated with significant cardiovascular benefits when compared with hydrochlorothiazide, while its use was associated with greater risk of renal and electrolyte abnormalities. These findings do not support current recommendations to prefer chlorthalidone vs hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension treatment in first-time users was found. We used advanced methods, sensitivity analyses, and diagnostics, but given the possibility of residual confounding and the limited length of observation periods, further study is warranted.


Assuntos
Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêutico , Clortalidona/uso terapêutico , Hidroclorotiazida/uso terapêutico , Hipertensão/tratamento farmacológico , Anti-Hipertensivos/efeitos adversos , Clortalidona/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Hidroclorotiazida/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos
12.
Korean Circ J ; 50(1): 52-68, 2020 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31642211

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: 2018 ESC/ESH Hypertension guideline recommends 2-drug combination as initial anti-hypertensive therapy. However, real-world evidence for effectiveness of recommended regimens remains limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of first-line anti-hypertensive treatment combining 2 out of the following classes: angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blocker (A), calcium channel blocker (C), and thiazide-type diuretics (D). METHODS: Treatment-naïve hypertensive adults without cardiovascular disease (CVD) who initiated dual anti-hypertensive medications were identified in 5 databases from US and Korea. The patients were matched for each comparison set by large-scale propensity score matching. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as a composite outcome comprised the secondary measure. RESULTS: A total of 987,983 patients met the eligibility criteria. After matching, 222,686, 32,344, and 38,513 patients were allocated to A+C vs. A+D, C+D vs. A+C, and C+D vs. A+D comparison, respectively. There was no significant difference in the mortality during total of 1,806,077 person-years: A+C vs. A+D (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.20; p=0.127), C+D vs. A+C (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.01; p=0.067), and C+D vs. A+D (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.47; p=0.104). A+C was associated with a slightly higher risk of heart failure (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.18; p=0.040) and stroke (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17; p=0.040) than A+D. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in mortality among A+C, A+D, and C+D combination treatment in patients without previous CVD. This finding was consistent across multi-national heterogeneous cohorts in real-world practice.

13.
J Am Med Inform Assoc ; 27(3): 376-385, 2020 03 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31816040

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: We propose a one-shot, privacy-preserving distributed algorithm to perform logistic regression (ODAL) across multiple clinical sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ODAL effectively utilizes the information from the local site (where the patient-level data are accessible) and incorporates the first-order (ODAL1) and second-order (ODAL2) gradients of the likelihood function from other sites to construct an estimator without requiring iterative communication across sites or transferring patient-level data. We evaluated ODAL via extensive simulation studies and an application to a dataset from the University of Pennsylvania Health System. The estimation accuracy was evaluated by comparing it with the estimator based on the combined individual participant data or pooled data (ie, gold standard). RESULTS: Our simulation studies revealed that the relative estimation bias of ODAL1 compared with the pooled estimates was <3%, and the ratio of standard errors was <1.25 for all scenarios. ODAL2 achieved higher accuracy (with relative bias <0.1% and ratio of standard errors <1.05). In real data analysis, we investigated the associations of 100 medications with fetal loss during pregnancy. We found that ODAL1 provided estimates with relative bias <10% for 85% of medications, and ODAL2 has relative bias <10% for 99% of medications. For communication cost, ODAL1 requires transferring p numbers from each site to the local site and ODAL2 requires transferring (p×p+p) numbers from each site to the local site, where p is the number of parameters in the regression model. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that ODAL is privacy-preserving and communication-efficient with small bias and high statistical efficiency.

14.
Lancet ; 394(10211): 1816-1826, 2019 11 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31668726

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty remains about the optimal monotherapy for hypertension, with current guidelines recommending any primary agent among the first-line drug classes thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, in the absence of comorbid indications. Randomised trials have not further refined this choice. METHODS: We developed a comprehensive framework for real-world evidence that enables comparative effectiveness and safety evaluation across many drugs and outcomes from observational data encompassing millions of patients, while minimising inherent bias. Using this framework, we did a systematic, large-scale study under a new-user cohort design to estimate the relative risks of three primary (acute myocardial infarction, hospitalisation for heart failure, and stroke) and six secondary effectiveness and 46 safety outcomes comparing all first-line classes across a global network of six administrative claims and three electronic health record databases. The framework addressed residual confounding, publication bias, and p-hacking using large-scale propensity adjustment, a large set of control outcomes, and full disclosure of hypotheses tested. FINDINGS: Using 4·9 million patients, we generated 22 000 calibrated, propensity-score-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) comparing all classes and outcomes across databases. Most estimates revealed no effectiveness differences between classes; however, thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics showed better primary effectiveness than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: acute myocardial infarction (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·75-0·95), hospitalisation for heart failure (0·83, 0·74-0·95), and stroke (0·83, 0·74-0·95) risk while on initial treatment. Safety profiles also favoured thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers were significantly inferior to the other four classes. INTERPRETATION: This comprehensive framework introduces a new way of doing observational health-care science at scale. The approach supports equivalence between drug classes for initiating monotherapy for hypertension-in keeping with current guidelines, with the exception of thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics superiority to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and the inferiority of non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers. FUNDING: US National Science Foundation, US National Institutes of Health, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, South Korean Ministry of Health & Welfare, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.


Assuntos
Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêutico , Hipertensão/tratamento farmacológico , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/efeitos adversos , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/uso terapêutico , Inibidores da Enzima Conversora de Angiotensina/efeitos adversos , Inibidores da Enzima Conversora de Angiotensina/uso terapêutico , Anti-Hipertensivos/efeitos adversos , Bloqueadores dos Canais de Cálcio/efeitos adversos , Bloqueadores dos Canais de Cálcio/uso terapêutico , Criança , Estudos de Coortes , Pesquisa Comparativa da Efetividade/métodos , Bases de Dados Factuais , Diuréticos/efeitos adversos , Diuréticos/uso terapêutico , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/métodos , Feminino , Insuficiência Cardíaca/etiologia , Insuficiência Cardíaca/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Hipertensão/complicações , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Infarto do Miocárdio/etiologia , Infarto do Miocárdio/prevenção & controle , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/etiologia , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/prevenção & controle , Adulto Jovem
15.
Stat Med ; 38(22): 4199-4208, 2019 09 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31436848

RESUMO

The case-control design is widely used in retrospective database studies, often leading to spectacular findings. However, results of these studies often cannot be replicated, and the advantage of this design over others is questionable. To demonstrate the shortcomings of applications of this design, we replicate two published case-control studies. The first investigates isotretinoin and ulcerative colitis using a simple case-control design. The second focuses on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and acute pancreatitis, using a nested case-control design. We include large sets of negative control exposures (where the true odds ratio is believed to be 1) in both studies. Both replication studies produce effect size estimates consistent with the original studies, but also generate estimates for the negative control exposures showing substantial residual bias. In contrast, applying a self-controlled design to answer the same questions using the same data reveals far less bias. Although the case-control design in general is not at fault, its application in retrospective database studies, where all exposure and covariate data for the entire cohort are available, is unnecessary, as other alternatives such as cohort and self-controlled designs are available. Moreover, by focusing on cases and controls it opens the door to inappropriate comparisons between exposure groups, leading to confounding for which the design has few options to adjust for. We argue that this design should no longer be used in these types of data. At the very least, negative control exposures should be used to prove that the concerns raised here do not apply.

16.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf ; 28(12): 1620-1628, 2019 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31456304

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To compare the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who were new users of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) versus other classes of antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs). METHODS: Patients were identified from four large US claims databases using broad (all T2DM patients) and narrow (intended to exclude patients with type 1 diabetes or secondary diabetes misclassified as T2DM) definitions of T2DM. New users of SGLT2i and seven groups of comparator AHAs were matched (1:1) on exposure propensity scores to adjust for imbalances in baseline covariates. Cox proportional hazards regression models, conditioned on propensity score-matched pairs, were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of DKA for new users of SGLT2i versus other AHAs. When I2 <40%, a combined HR across the four databases was estimated. RESULTS: Using the broad definition of T2DM, new users of SGLT2i had an increased risk of DKA versus sulfonylureas (HR [95% CI]: 1.53 [1.31-1.79]), DPP-4i (1.28 [1.11-1.47]), GLP-1 receptor agonists (1.34 [1.12-1.60]), metformin (1.31 [1.11-1.54]), and insulinotropic AHAs (1.38 [1.15-1.66]). Using the narrow definition of T2DM, new users of SGLT2i had an increased risk of DKA versus sulfonylureas (1.43 [1.01-2.01]). New users of SGLT2i had a lower risk of DKA versus insulin and a similar risk as thiazolidinediones, regardless of T2DM definition. CONCLUSIONS: Increased risk of DKA was observed for new users of SGLT2i versus several non-SGLT2i AHAs when T2DM was defined broadly. When T2DM was defined narrowly to exclude possible misclassified patients, an increased risk of DKA with SGLT2i was observed compared with sulfonylureas.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Cetoacidose Diabética/epidemiologia , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/efeitos adversos , Demandas Administrativas em Assistência à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Idoso , Glicemia , Bases de Dados Factuais/estatística & dados numéricos , Cetoacidose Diabética/induzido quimicamente , Feminino , Receptor do Peptídeo Semelhante ao Glucagon 1/antagonistas & inibidores , Humanos , Incidência , Insulina/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Metformina/efeitos adversos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fatores de Risco , Compostos de Sulfonilureia/efeitos adversos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
18.
PLoS One ; 14(3): e0212999, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30830923

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Propensity score (PS) methods are commonly used to control for confounding in comparative effectiveness studies. Electronic health records (EHRs) contain much unstructured data that could be used as proxies for potential confounding factors. The goal of this study was to assess whether the unstructured information can also be used to construct PS models that would allow to properly deal with confounding. We used an example of coxibs (Cox-2 inhibitors) vs. traditional NSAIDs and the risk of upper gastro-intestinal bleeding as example, since this association is often confounded due to channeling of coxibs to patients at higher risk of upper gastro-intestinal bleeding. METHODS: In a cohort study of new users of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) from the Dutch Integrated Primary Care Information (IPCI) database, we identified all patients who experienced an upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). We used a large-scale regularized regression to fit two PS models using all structured and unstructured information in the EHR. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) to estimate the risk of UGIB among selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor users compared to nonselective NSAID (nsNSAID) users. RESULTS: The crude hazard ratio of UGIB for COX-2 inhibitors compared to nsNSAIDs was 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.18-1.36). Matching only on age resulted in an HR of 0.36 (0.11-1.16), and of 0.35 (0.11-1.11) when further adjusted for sex. Matching on PS only, the first model yielded an HR of 0.42 (0.13-1.38), which reduced to 0.35 (0.96-1.25) when adjusted for age and sex. The second model resulted in an HR of 0.42 (0.13-1.39), which dropped to 0.31 (0.09-1.08) after adjustment for age and sex. CONCLUSIONS: PS models can be created using unstructured information in EHRs. An incremental benefit was observed by matching on PS over traditional matching and adjustment for covariates.


Assuntos
Interpretação Estatística de Dados , Pontuação de Propensão , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos de Coortes , Fatores de Confusão Epidemiológicos , Inibidores de Ciclo-Oxigenase 2/efeitos adversos , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/induzido quimicamente , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Países Baixos/epidemiologia , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Medição de Risco/métodos
19.
PLoS One ; 13(11): e0204746, 2018.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30383755

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Use of selective COX-2 non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (coxibs) has been associated with an increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, the risk of AMI has only been studied for very few NSAIDs that are frequently used. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the risk of AMI for individual NSAIDs. METHODS: A nested case-control study was performed from a cohort of new NSAID users ≥18 years (1999-2011) matching cases to a maximum of 100 controls on database, sex, age, and calendar time. Data were retrieved from six healthcare databases. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of current use of individual NSAIDs compared to past use were estimated per database. Pooling was done by two-stage pooling using a random effects model (ORmeta) and by one-stage pooling (ORpool). RESULTS: Among 8.5 million new NSAID users, 79,553 AMI cases were identified. The risk was elevated for current use of ketorolac (ORmeta 2.06;95%CI 1.83-2.32, ORpool 1.80; 1.49-2.18) followed, in descending order of point estimate, by indometacin, etoricoxib, rofecoxib, diclofenac, fixed combination of diclofenac with misoprostol, piroxicam, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, meloxicam, nimesulide and ketoprofen (ORmeta 1.12; 1.03-1.22, ORpool 1.00;0.86-1.16). Higher doses showed higher risk estimates than lower doses. CONCLUSIONS: The relative risk estimates of AMI differed slightly between 28 individual NSAIDs. The relative risk was highest for ketorolac and was correlated with COX-2 potency, but not restricted to coxibs.


Assuntos
Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/efeitos adversos , Infarto do Miocárdio/induzido quimicamente , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Diclofenaco/efeitos adversos , Etoricoxib/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Indometacina/efeitos adversos , Cetorolaco/efeitos adversos , Lactonas/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Razão de Chances , Fatores de Risco , Sulfonas/efeitos adversos
20.
PLoS One ; 13(9): e0203362, 2018.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30231067

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A multi-country European study using data from six healthcare databases from four countries was performed to evaluate in a large study population (>32 million) the risk of ischemic stroke (IS) associated with individual NSAIDs and to assess the impact of risk factors of IS and co-medication. METHODS: Case-control study nested in a cohort of new NSAID users. For each case, up to 100 sex- and age-matched controls were selected and confounder-adjusted odds ratios for current use of individual NSAIDs compared to past use calculated. RESULTS: 49,170 cases of IS were observed among 4,593,778 new NSAID users. Use of coxibs (odds ratio 1.08, 95%-confidence interval 1.02-1.15) and use of traditional NSAIDs (1.16, 1.12-1.19) were associated with an increased risk of IS. Among 32 individual NSAIDs evaluated, the highest significant risk of IS was observed for ketorolac (1.46, 1.19-1.78), but significantly increased risks (in decreasing order) were also found for diclofenac, indomethacin, rofecoxib, ibuprofen, nimesulide, diclofenac with misoprostol, and piroxicam. IS risk associated with NSAID use was generally higher in persons of younger age, males, and those with a prior history of IS. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of IS differs between individual NSAIDs and appears to be higher in patients with a prior history of IS or transient ischemic attack (TIA), in younger or male patients. Co-medication with aspirin, other antiplatelets or anticoagulants might mitigate this risk. The small to moderate observed risk increase (by 13-46%) associated with NSAIDs use represents a public health concern due to widespread NSAID usage.


Assuntos
Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/efeitos adversos , Isquemia Encefálica/etiologia , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/etiologia , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Infarto Cerebral/etiologia , Estudos de Coortes , Inibidores de Ciclo-Oxigenase 2/efeitos adversos , Bases de Dados Factuais , Europa (Continente) , Feminino , Humanos , Cetorolaco/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Razão de Chances , Fatores de Risco
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...