The Extent and Magnitude of Bias in Case-Crossover Studies of Real-World Non-transient Medications Patterns: A Simulation Study with Real-World Examples.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Hsiao-Ching Huang, Mina Tadrous, Saria Awadalla, Daniel Touchette, Glen T Schumock, Todd A Lee
{"title":"The Extent and Magnitude of Bias in Case-Crossover Studies of Real-World Non-transient Medications Patterns: A Simulation Study with Real-World Examples.","authors":"Hsiao-Ching Huang, Mina Tadrous, Saria Awadalla, Daniel Touchette, Glen T Schumock, Todd A Lee","doi":"10.1007/s40264-025-01597-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A case-crossover study is a self-controlled design most appropriate for evaluating transient medication exposures. However, it has increasingly been used in studies of chronic medications and can cause bias in effect estimates that vary based on the pattern of medication use. The goal of this study was to evaluate the magnitude of this bias across different medication-use patterns.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To quantify the magnitude of the bias introduced by different medication patterns and evaluate different case-crossover approaches to mitigate the bias.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a simulation study evaluating the bias introduced by (1) seven common medication patterns separately, and (2) cohort with 15 different patterns combined. We evaluated each scenario under risk ratios of 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.50, and 2.00. Each approach was analyzed using conditional logistic regression comparing the probability of exposure on the outcome day to 30 days prior. A case-time-control design was used in each of the scenarios. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact on the estimates when changing the length of the risk and control windows. We conducted a real-world example focusing on sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor users as real-world examples.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The case-crossover design resulted in unbiased estimates when patterns were consistent with transient exposures but were biased upward with prolonged exposure patterns. The magnitude of the bias varies by patterns or pattern combinations. When evaluating prolonged exposures individually or combined as a cohort with mixture patterns, case-time-control with extended risk and control window (30 days) produced unbiased results (mean bias ≤ 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Researchers who use the case-crossover design to evaluate non-transient exposures should implement recommended methods to account for biases.</p>","PeriodicalId":11382,"journal":{"name":"Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-025-01597-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: A case-crossover study is a self-controlled design most appropriate for evaluating transient medication exposures. However, it has increasingly been used in studies of chronic medications and can cause bias in effect estimates that vary based on the pattern of medication use. The goal of this study was to evaluate the magnitude of this bias across different medication-use patterns.

Objective: To quantify the magnitude of the bias introduced by different medication patterns and evaluate different case-crossover approaches to mitigate the bias.

Methods: We conducted a simulation study evaluating the bias introduced by (1) seven common medication patterns separately, and (2) cohort with 15 different patterns combined. We evaluated each scenario under risk ratios of 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.50, and 2.00. Each approach was analyzed using conditional logistic regression comparing the probability of exposure on the outcome day to 30 days prior. A case-time-control design was used in each of the scenarios. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the impact on the estimates when changing the length of the risk and control windows. We conducted a real-world example focusing on sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor users as real-world examples.

Results: The case-crossover design resulted in unbiased estimates when patterns were consistent with transient exposures but were biased upward with prolonged exposure patterns. The magnitude of the bias varies by patterns or pattern combinations. When evaluating prolonged exposures individually or combined as a cohort with mixture patterns, case-time-control with extended risk and control window (30 days) produced unbiased results (mean bias ≤ 0.03).

Conclusion: Researchers who use the case-crossover design to evaluate non-transient exposures should implement recommended methods to account for biases.

真实世界非瞬态药物模式的病例-交叉研究的偏倚程度和程度:一项具有真实世界实例的模拟研究。
病例交叉研究是一种自我控制设计,最适合评估瞬时药物暴露。然而,它越来越多地用于慢性药物的研究,并可能导致根据药物使用模式而变化的效果估计的偏差。本研究的目的是评估这种偏差在不同药物使用模式中的程度。目的:量化不同用药模式带来的偏倚的程度,并评估不同的病例交叉方法来减轻偏倚。方法:采用模拟研究方法,分别对7种常用用药模式和15种不同用药模式的队列进行偏倚评价。我们在风险比分别为0.50、0.75、1.00、1.50和2.00的情况下对每种情况进行了评估。使用条件逻辑回归比较结果日和30天前暴露的概率,对每种方法进行分析。在每个场景中都使用了病例-时间-对照设计。进行敏感性分析,以评估当改变风险和控制窗口的长度时对估计的影响。我们进行了一个真实世界的例子,重点关注钠-葡萄糖共转运蛋白-2抑制剂使用者作为真实世界的例子。结果:当模式与短暂暴露一致时,病例交叉设计导致无偏估计,但与长时间暴露模式相偏向。偏差的大小因模式或模式组合而异。当单独评估长时间暴露或合并为混合模式的队列时,延长风险和控制窗口(30天)的病例-时间控制产生了无偏结果(平均偏差≤0.03)。结论:使用病例交叉设计评估非瞬时暴露的研究人员应采用推荐的方法来解释偏倚。
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
Drug Safety
Drug Safety 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
112
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Drug Safety is the official journal of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance. The journal includes: Overviews of contentious or emerging issues. Comprehensive narrative reviews that provide an authoritative source of information on epidemiology, clinical features, prevention and management of adverse effects of individual drugs and drug classes. In-depth benefit-risk assessment of adverse effect and efficacy data for a drug in a defined therapeutic area. Systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses) that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by the PRISMA statement. Original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies in disciplines such as pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacovigilance, pharmacology and toxicology, and pharmacogenomics. Editorials and commentaries on topical issues. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Drug Safety Drugs may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.
×
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