Martin Torp Rahbek, Jesper Hallas, Lars Christian Lund
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Obtaining Valid Compatibility Intervals for Sequence Symmetry Analyses Utilizing Active Comparators: A Simulation Study.
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.
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.