Obtaining Valid Compatibility Intervals for Sequence Symmetry Analyses Utilizing Active Comparators: A Simulation Study.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Martin Torp Rahbek, Jesper Hallas, Lars Christian Lund
{"title":"Obtaining Valid Compatibility Intervals for Sequence Symmetry Analyses Utilizing Active Comparators: A Simulation Study.","authors":"Martin Torp Rahbek, Jesper Hallas, Lars Christian Lund","doi":"10.1002/pds.70160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare different methods of estimating 95% compatibility intervals (CIs) for the sequence ratio (SR) when performing a sequence symmetry analysis using an active comparator to reduce the risk of time-varying confounding.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a simulation study, where we simulated drug-outcome and outcome-drug sequences for a drug of interest and a comparator drug using the binomial distribution and obtained active comparator SRs and 95% CIs. We simulated scenarios with sample sizes between 5 and 50 observed sequences for each SR, which could take values of 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0, yielding 276 scenarios that were replicated 5000 times. For each replication, we calculated 95% CIs using current recommendations based on exact CIs, the Woolf logit, Baptista-Pike mid-p, and Miettinen-Nurminen score estimator and calculated coverage for each scenario.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All interval estimators provided acceptable coverage when sample sizes exceeded 15, except for the current recommendation, the exact Clopper-Pearson interval. The Miettinen-Nurminen score (coverage 0.951) and Baptista-Pike mid-p interval (coverage 0.955) offered more accurate coverage than other methods. The largest divergence from 0.95 was observed for the current recommendations (coverage 0.979).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Miettinen-Nurminen score estimator provided the most accurate coverage for 95% CIs of active comparator SRs, especially with low sample sizes. Therefore, we recommend using the Miettinen-Nurminen score estimator for active comparator SRs.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"34 6","pages":"e70160"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12092166/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70160","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare different methods of estimating 95% compatibility intervals (CIs) for the sequence ratio (SR) when performing a sequence symmetry analysis using an active comparator to reduce the risk of time-varying confounding.

Methods: We conducted a simulation study, where we simulated drug-outcome and outcome-drug sequences for a drug of interest and a comparator drug using the binomial distribution and obtained active comparator SRs and 95% CIs. We simulated scenarios with sample sizes between 5 and 50 observed sequences for each SR, which could take values of 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0, yielding 276 scenarios that were replicated 5000 times. For each replication, we calculated 95% CIs using current recommendations based on exact CIs, the Woolf logit, Baptista-Pike mid-p, and Miettinen-Nurminen score estimator and calculated coverage for each scenario.

Results: All interval estimators provided acceptable coverage when sample sizes exceeded 15, except for the current recommendation, the exact Clopper-Pearson interval. The Miettinen-Nurminen score (coverage 0.951) and Baptista-Pike mid-p interval (coverage 0.955) offered more accurate coverage than other methods. The largest divergence from 0.95 was observed for the current recommendations (coverage 0.979).

Conclusions: The Miettinen-Nurminen score estimator provided the most accurate coverage for 95% CIs of active comparator SRs, especially with low sample sizes. Therefore, we recommend using the Miettinen-Nurminen score estimator for active comparator SRs.

Abstract Image

利用主动比较器获得序列对称分析的有效相容区间:仿真研究。
目的:比较在使用主动比较器进行序列对称分析时估计序列比(SR) 95%相容区间(ci)的不同方法,以减少时变混淆的风险。方法:我们进行了一项模拟研究,其中我们使用二项分布模拟了感兴趣药物和比较药物的药物-结局和结果-药物序列,并获得了有效的比较药物SRs和95% ci。我们模拟了每个SR的样本量在5到50个观察序列之间的场景,其值可以为0.5、1.0或2.0,产生了276个场景,这些场景被复制了5000次。对于每个复制,我们使用基于精确ci、Woolf logit、Baptista-Pike mid-p和Miettinen-Nurminen评分估计值的当前建议计算95% ci,并计算每个场景的覆盖率。结果:当样本量超过15时,除了当前推荐的精确的Clopper-Pearson区间外,所有区间估计器都提供了可接受的覆盖率。Miettinen-Nurminen评分(覆盖率0.951)和Baptista-Pike中p区间(覆盖率0.955)的覆盖率较其他方法更准确。目前的建议与0.95的差异最大(覆盖率0.979)。结论:Miettinen-Nurminen评分估计器为95%的有效比较剂SRs提供了最准确的覆盖率,特别是在低样本量的情况下。因此,我们建议使用Miettinen-Nurminen评分估计器进行主动比较器sr。
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
173
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report. Particular areas of interest include: design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology; comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world; methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology; assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy; patterns of drug utilization; relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines; evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信