Kyungyeon Jung, Seong Jun Byun, Gyeongmin Lim, Jeong-Eun Lee, Hyesung Lee, Ju Hwan Kim, Ju-Young Shin
{"title":"Potential Bias in Self-Controlled Case Series Design: Impact of Incident Versus Prevalent Scenarios of Exposure and Outcome.","authors":"Kyungyeon Jung, Seong Jun Byun, Gyeongmin Lim, Jeong-Eun Lee, Hyesung Lee, Ju Hwan Kim, Ju-Young Shin","doi":"10.1002/pds.70234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess changes in study results in self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies and explore potential biases when applying incident and prevalent exposure and outcome scenarios.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used the National Health Insurance Service database in South Korea to conduct two SCCS studies: (1) the risk of retinal detachment following fluoroquinolone use (expected elevated risk), and (2) the risk of acute cardiovascular disease following ranibizumab use (expected null association). Exposure and outcome scenarios were classified based on a washout period of 2 and 1 year, respectively, before the observation period: incident exposure-incident outcome, incident exposure-prevalent outcome, prevalent exposure-incident outcome, and prevalent exposure-prevalent outcome. For each scenario, conditional Poisson regression models, adjusted for time-varying age, estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the fluoroquinolone study, IRRs of retinal detachment were as follows: 1.83 (95% CI 1.72-1.96) for incident exposure-incident outcome, 1.83 (1.71-1.95) for incident exposure-prevalent outcome, 1.71 (1.62-1.80) for prevalent exposure-incident outcome, and 1.70 (1.62-1.79) for prevalent exposure-prevalent outcome scenario. In the ranibizumab study, IRRs of acute cardiovascular disease were 0.91 (0.84-0.99), 0.89 (0.82-0.97), 1.02 (0.94-1.10), and 1.00 (0.93-1.08), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In prevalent exposure scenarios, IRRs in both studies were attenuated, consistent with prevalent user bias. In prevalent outcome scenarios, where survivor bias was anticipated, no notable shifts in IRRs were observed, possibly due to the high severity and low recurrence of the outcomes associated with the respective exposures. Further consideration of prevalent user and survivor bias is important when interpreting SCCS results. Additional research is needed to quantify the impact of varying exposure and outcome definitions on SCCS estimates.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"34 10","pages":"e70234"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70234","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 assess changes in study results in self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies and explore potential biases when applying incident and prevalent exposure and outcome scenarios.
Methods: We used the National Health Insurance Service database in South Korea to conduct two SCCS studies: (1) the risk of retinal detachment following fluoroquinolone use (expected elevated risk), and (2) the risk of acute cardiovascular disease following ranibizumab use (expected null association). Exposure and outcome scenarios were classified based on a washout period of 2 and 1 year, respectively, before the observation period: incident exposure-incident outcome, incident exposure-prevalent outcome, prevalent exposure-incident outcome, and prevalent exposure-prevalent outcome. For each scenario, conditional Poisson regression models, adjusted for time-varying age, estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results: In the fluoroquinolone study, IRRs of retinal detachment were as follows: 1.83 (95% CI 1.72-1.96) for incident exposure-incident outcome, 1.83 (1.71-1.95) for incident exposure-prevalent outcome, 1.71 (1.62-1.80) for prevalent exposure-incident outcome, and 1.70 (1.62-1.79) for prevalent exposure-prevalent outcome scenario. In the ranibizumab study, IRRs of acute cardiovascular disease were 0.91 (0.84-0.99), 0.89 (0.82-0.97), 1.02 (0.94-1.10), and 1.00 (0.93-1.08), respectively.
Conclusions: In prevalent exposure scenarios, IRRs in both studies were attenuated, consistent with prevalent user bias. In prevalent outcome scenarios, where survivor bias was anticipated, no notable shifts in IRRs were observed, possibly due to the high severity and low recurrence of the outcomes associated with the respective exposures. Further consideration of prevalent user and survivor bias is important when interpreting SCCS results. Additional research is needed to quantify the impact of varying exposure and outcome definitions on SCCS estimates.
目的:评估自我控制病例系列(SCCS)研究结果的变化,并探讨在应用事件和普遍暴露以及结果情景时的潜在偏差。方法:我们使用韩国国民健康保险服务数据库进行了两项SCCS研究:(1)氟喹诺酮类药物使用后视网膜脱离的风险(预期风险升高),(2)雷尼单抗使用后急性心血管疾病的风险(预期无关联)。根据观察期前2年和1年的洗脱期分别对暴露和结果情景进行分类:事件暴露-事件结果、事件暴露-普遍结果、普遍暴露-事件结果和普遍暴露-普遍结果。对于每种情况,使用条件泊松回归模型,对年龄随时间变化进行调整,估计发病率比(IRRs)为95%置信区间(ci)。结果:在氟喹诺酮研究中,视网膜脱离的irr如下:事件暴露-事件结局1.83 (95% CI 1.72-1.96),事件暴露-普遍结局1.83 (95% CI 1.71-1.95),普遍暴露-事件结局1.71 (95% CI 1.62-1.80),普遍暴露-普遍结局1.70 (95% CI 1.62-1.79)。在雷尼单抗研究中,急性心血管疾病的IRRs分别为0.91(0.84-0.99)、0.89(0.82-0.97)、1.02(0.94-1.10)和1.00(0.93-1.08)。结论:在普遍的暴露情况下,两项研究中的irr都减弱了,与普遍的用户偏见一致。在普遍结果情景中,预期存在幸存者偏倚,未观察到irr的显著变化,可能是由于与各自暴露相关的结果的高严重性和低复发率。在解释SCCS结果时,进一步考虑普遍存在的用户和幸存者偏见是很重要的。需要进一步的研究来量化不同暴露和结果定义对SCCS估计的影响。
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.