Grace periods and exposure misclassification in self-controlled case-series studies of drug-drug interactions.

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Hanxi Zhang, Warren B Bilker, Charles E Leonard, Sean Hennessy, Todd A Miano
{"title":"Grace periods and exposure misclassification in self-controlled case-series studies of drug-drug interactions.","authors":"Hanxi Zhang, Warren B Bilker, Charles E Leonard, Sean Hennessy, Todd A Miano","doi":"10.1093/aje/kwae231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The self-controlled case-series (SCCS) research design is increasingly used in pharmacoepidemiologic studies of drug-drug interactions (DDIs), with the target of inference being the incidence rate ratio (IRR) associated with concomitant exposure to the object plus precipitant drug vs the object drug alone. While day-level drug exposure can be inferred from dispensing claims, these inferences may be inaccurate, leading to biased IRRs. Grace periods (periods assuming continued treatment impact after days' supply exhaustion) are frequently used by researchers, but the impact of grace period decisions on bias from exposure misclassification remains unclear. Motivated by an SCCS study examining the potential DDI between clopidogrel (object) and warfarin (precipitant), we investigated bias due to precipitant or object exposure misclassification using simulations. We show that misclassified precipitant treatment always biases the estimated IRR toward the null, whereas misclassified object treatment may lead to bias in either direction or no bias, depending on the scenario. Further, including a grace period for each object dispensing may unintentionally increase the risk of misclassification bias. To minimize such bias, we recommend (1) avoiding the use of grace periods when specifying object drug exposure episodes and (2) including a washout period following each precipitant exposed period. This article is part of a Special Collection on Pharmacoepidemiology.</p>","PeriodicalId":7472,"journal":{"name":"American journal of epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"802-810"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11879552/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae231","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The self-controlled case-series (SCCS) research design is increasingly used in pharmacoepidemiologic studies of drug-drug interactions (DDIs), with the target of inference being the incidence rate ratio (IRR) associated with concomitant exposure to the object plus precipitant drug vs the object drug alone. While day-level drug exposure can be inferred from dispensing claims, these inferences may be inaccurate, leading to biased IRRs. Grace periods (periods assuming continued treatment impact after days' supply exhaustion) are frequently used by researchers, but the impact of grace period decisions on bias from exposure misclassification remains unclear. Motivated by an SCCS study examining the potential DDI between clopidogrel (object) and warfarin (precipitant), we investigated bias due to precipitant or object exposure misclassification using simulations. We show that misclassified precipitant treatment always biases the estimated IRR toward the null, whereas misclassified object treatment may lead to bias in either direction or no bias, depending on the scenario. Further, including a grace period for each object dispensing may unintentionally increase the risk of misclassification bias. To minimize such bias, we recommend (1) avoiding the use of grace periods when specifying object drug exposure episodes and (2) including a washout period following each precipitant exposed period. This article is part of a Special Collection on Pharmacoepidemiology.

药物相互作用自我对照病例系列研究中的宽限期和暴露误分类。
药物-药物相互作用(DDI)的药物流行病学研究越来越多地采用自控病例系列(SCCS)研究设计,其推断目标是同时暴露于目标药物和诱发药物与单独暴露于目标药物的相关发病率比(IRR)。虽然可以从配药申报单中推断出日药物暴露量,但这些推断可能并不准确,从而导致有偏差的 IRR。研究人员经常使用宽限期(假定天数供应耗尽后继续治疗的时期),但宽限期决策对暴露误分类偏差的影响仍不清楚。一项 SCCS 研究考察了氯吡格雷(对象)和华法林(诱因)之间潜在的 DDI,受此启发,我们使用模拟方法调查了诱因或对象暴露误分类导致的偏差。我们的研究结果表明,沉淀物治疗的分类错误总是会使估计的内部收益率偏向空值,而对象治疗的分类错误则可能导致任一方向的偏差或无偏差,这取决于具体情况。此外,为每次对象配药设置宽限期可能会无意中增加误分类偏差的风险。为了尽量减少这种偏差,我们建议:1)在指定对象药物暴露事件时避免使用宽限期;2)在每个沉淀物暴露期后包括一个冲洗期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American journal of epidemiology
American journal of epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
221
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Epidemiology is the oldest and one of the premier epidemiologic journals devoted to the publication of empirical research findings, opinion pieces, and methodological developments in the field of epidemiologic research. It is a peer-reviewed journal aimed at both fellow epidemiologists and those who use epidemiologic data, including public health workers and clinicians.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信