Potential Channeling Bias in the Evaluation of Cardiovascular Risk: The Importance of Comparator Selection in Observational Research.

IF 3.1 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Pharmaceutical Medicine Pub Date : 2022-08-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-04 DOI:10.1007/s40290-022-00433-z
Hu Li, Francis Mawanda, Lucy Mitchell, Xiang Zhang, Robert Goodloe, Maurice Vincent, Stephen Motsko
{"title":"Potential Channeling Bias in the Evaluation of Cardiovascular Risk: The Importance of Comparator Selection in Observational Research.","authors":"Hu Li,&nbsp;Francis Mawanda,&nbsp;Lucy Mitchell,&nbsp;Xiang Zhang,&nbsp;Robert Goodloe,&nbsp;Maurice Vincent,&nbsp;Stephen Motsko","doi":"10.1007/s40290-022-00433-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Comparator selection is an important consideration in the design of observational research studies that evaluate potential associations between drug therapies and adverse event risks. It can affect the validity of observational study results, and potentially impact data interpretation, regulatory decision making, and patient medication access.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to assess the impact of comparator selection bias using two real-world case studies evaluating an increased rate of acute myocardial infarction (AMI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan<sup>®</sup> electronic medical claims database were used to conduct two retrospective observational cohort studies, utilizing a cohort new-user design, comparing AMI risk between testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5is) in men treated for hypogonadism, and triptans versus other prescribed acute treatments for migraine in adults. All patients were enrolled continuously in a health plan (no enrollment gap > 31 consecutive days) for ≥ 1 year before index. Baseline period was defined as 365 days prior to index. Exposure was defined by prescription and outcome of interest was defined as occurrence of AMI. Using Cox proportional hazard models, primary analysis for the TRT cohort compared AMI risk between propensity score (PS)-matched TRT-treated and untreated patients; secondary analysis evaluated risk between PS-matched TRT-treated and PDE5i-treated patients. For the triptan cohort, primary analysis compared AMI/ischemic stroke risk between PS-matched triptan-treated and opiate-treated patients; secondary analysis evaluated risk between PS-matched triptan-treated and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-treated patients and PS-matched non-prescription-treated migraine patients and general patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant association between TRT and AMI was observed among TRT-treated (N = 198,528, mean age 52.4 ± 11.4 years) versus PDE5i-treated men (N = 198,528, mean age 52.3 ± 11.5 years) overall (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.01; 95% CI 0.95-1.07; p = 0.80). Among patients with prior cardiovascular disease (CVD), risk of AMI was significantly increased for TRT-treated versus PDE5i-treated patients (aHR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03-1.25). The triptan study included three comparisons (triptans [N = 436,642] vs prescription NSAIDs [N = 334,152], opiates [N = 55,234], and untreated migraine [N = 1,168,212]), and a positive control (untreated vs general non-migraine patients [N = 11,735,009]). Analyses of MI risk in migraine patients prescribed triptans versus NSAIDs/opiates had mixed results: the point estimate ranged from 0.33 to 0.84 depending on chosen study window.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cardiovascular outcomes were not worse in hypogonadism patients with TRT versus PDE5i; however, a potential association with AMI was found in patients with prior CVD receiving TRT versus PDE5i. Findings pointed to a pseudo-protective effect of triptans versus untreated migraine patients or those potentially older and less healthy patients exposed to prescription NSAIDs or opiates. Triptan users should not be compared with those using other anti-migraine prescriptions when evaluating cardiovascular outcomes in migraine patients. Presence of high cardiovascular risks may contribute to channeling bias-healthier subjects being selected to receive treatment-highlighting the importance of choosing comparators wisely in observational studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":19778,"journal":{"name":"Pharmaceutical Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/6f/39/40290_2022_Article_433.PMC9334378.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmaceutical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-022-00433-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Comparator selection is an important consideration in the design of observational research studies that evaluate potential associations between drug therapies and adverse event risks. It can affect the validity of observational study results, and potentially impact data interpretation, regulatory decision making, and patient medication access.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of comparator selection bias using two real-world case studies evaluating an increased rate of acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Methods: Data from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® electronic medical claims database were used to conduct two retrospective observational cohort studies, utilizing a cohort new-user design, comparing AMI risk between testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) and phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5is) in men treated for hypogonadism, and triptans versus other prescribed acute treatments for migraine in adults. All patients were enrolled continuously in a health plan (no enrollment gap > 31 consecutive days) for ≥ 1 year before index. Baseline period was defined as 365 days prior to index. Exposure was defined by prescription and outcome of interest was defined as occurrence of AMI. Using Cox proportional hazard models, primary analysis for the TRT cohort compared AMI risk between propensity score (PS)-matched TRT-treated and untreated patients; secondary analysis evaluated risk between PS-matched TRT-treated and PDE5i-treated patients. For the triptan cohort, primary analysis compared AMI/ischemic stroke risk between PS-matched triptan-treated and opiate-treated patients; secondary analysis evaluated risk between PS-matched triptan-treated and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-treated patients and PS-matched non-prescription-treated migraine patients and general patients.

Results: No significant association between TRT and AMI was observed among TRT-treated (N = 198,528, mean age 52.4 ± 11.4 years) versus PDE5i-treated men (N = 198,528, mean age 52.3 ± 11.5 years) overall (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.01; 95% CI 0.95-1.07; p = 0.80). Among patients with prior cardiovascular disease (CVD), risk of AMI was significantly increased for TRT-treated versus PDE5i-treated patients (aHR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03-1.25). The triptan study included three comparisons (triptans [N = 436,642] vs prescription NSAIDs [N = 334,152], opiates [N = 55,234], and untreated migraine [N = 1,168,212]), and a positive control (untreated vs general non-migraine patients [N = 11,735,009]). Analyses of MI risk in migraine patients prescribed triptans versus NSAIDs/opiates had mixed results: the point estimate ranged from 0.33 to 0.84 depending on chosen study window.

Conclusions: Cardiovascular outcomes were not worse in hypogonadism patients with TRT versus PDE5i; however, a potential association with AMI was found in patients with prior CVD receiving TRT versus PDE5i. Findings pointed to a pseudo-protective effect of triptans versus untreated migraine patients or those potentially older and less healthy patients exposed to prescription NSAIDs or opiates. Triptan users should not be compared with those using other anti-migraine prescriptions when evaluating cardiovascular outcomes in migraine patients. Presence of high cardiovascular risks may contribute to channeling bias-healthier subjects being selected to receive treatment-highlighting the importance of choosing comparators wisely in observational studies.

Abstract Image

心血管风险评估中的潜在通道偏倚:观察性研究中比较物选择的重要性。
背景:在评估药物治疗与不良事件风险之间的潜在关联的观察性研究设计中,比较物的选择是一个重要的考虑因素。它可以影响观察性研究结果的有效性,并可能影响数据解释、监管决策和患者用药获取。目的:本研究的目的是通过评估急性心肌梗死(AMI)发生率增加的两个真实案例研究来评估比较物选择偏倚的影响。方法:使用Truven Health Analytics MarketScan®电子医疗声明数据库的数据进行两项回顾性观察性队列研究,采用队列新用户设计,比较睾酮替代疗法(TRT)和磷酸二酯酶-5抑制剂(PDE5is)在治疗性腺功能减退的男性中的AMI风险,以及曲坦类药物与其他成人偏头痛处方急性治疗的AMI风险。所有患者均连续入组≥1年(无入组间隔>连续31天)。基准期定义为指数前365天。暴露被定义为处方,关注的结果被定义为AMI的发生。使用Cox比例风险模型,对TRT队列进行初步分析,比较倾向评分(PS)匹配的TRT治疗和未治疗患者的AMI风险;二次分析评估了ps匹配的trt治疗和pde5i治疗患者之间的风险。对于曲坦类药物队列,初步分析比较了ps匹配曲坦类药物治疗和阿片类药物治疗患者的AMI/缺血性卒中风险;二级分析评估了与ps匹配的曲坦治疗和非甾体抗炎药(NSAID)治疗的患者与与ps匹配的非处方治疗的偏头痛患者和普通患者之间的风险。结果:在接受TRT治疗(N = 198,528,平均年龄52.4±11.4岁)与接受pde5i治疗(N = 198,528,平均年龄52.3±11.5岁)的男性中,TRT与AMI之间无显著相关性(校正风险比[aHR] 1.01;95% ci 0.95-1.07;p = 0.80)。在既往有心血管疾病(CVD)的患者中,接受trt治疗的AMI风险显著高于接受pde5i治疗的患者(aHR 1.13;95% ci 1.03-1.25)。曲坦类药物研究包括三个比较(曲坦类药物[N = 436,642]与处方非甾体抗炎药[N = 334,152],阿片类药物[N = 55234]和未经治疗的偏头痛[N = 1,168,212]),以及阳性对照(未经治疗与一般非偏头痛患者[N = 11,735,009])。偏头痛患者服用曲坦类药物与非甾体抗炎药/阿片类药物的心肌梗死风险分析结果好坏参半:根据所选择的研究窗口,点估计值从0.33到0.84不等。结论:与PDE5i相比,TRT治疗性腺功能减退患者的心血管结局并不差;然而,在接受TRT和PDE5i治疗的既往CVD患者中发现了与AMI的潜在关联。研究结果指出,曲坦类药物对未经治疗的偏头痛患者或那些暴露于处方非甾体抗炎药或阿片类药物的潜在老年人和健康状况较差的患者具有伪保护作用。在评估偏头痛患者的心血管预后时,不应将曲坦类药物使用者与使用其他抗偏头痛处方的患者进行比较。存在高心血管风险可能有助于引导偏倚——选择更健康的受试者接受治疗——强调了在观察性研究中明智选择比较者的重要性。
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
Pharmaceutical Medicine
Pharmaceutical Medicine PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Pharmaceutical Medicine is a specialist discipline concerned with medical aspects of the discovery, development, evaluation, registration, regulation, monitoring, marketing, distribution and pricing of medicines, drug-device and drug-diagnostic combinations. The Journal disseminates information to support the community of professionals working in these highly inter-related functions. Key areas include translational medicine, clinical trial design, pharmacovigilance, clinical toxicology, drug regulation, clinical pharmacology, biostatistics and pharmacoeconomics. The Journal includes:Overviews of contentious or emerging issues.Comprehensive narrative reviews that provide an authoritative source of information on topical issues.Systematic reviews that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by PRISMA statement.Original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies with a strong link to wider areas of clinical research.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 Pharmaceutical Medicine 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.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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