慢性阻塞性肺病的及时与延迟三联治疗:观察性研究中时间相关偏差的解决方案

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Samy Suissa, Sophie Dell'Aniello, Michael Andrew Webster-Clark, Pierre Ernst
{"title":"慢性阻塞性肺病的及时与延迟三联治疗:观察性研究中时间相关偏差的解决方案","authors":"Samy Suissa, Sophie Dell'Aniello, Michael Andrew Webster-Clark, Pierre Ernst","doi":"10.2147/COPD.S527497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent observational studies have reported that prompt initiation of single-inhaler triple therapy after a COPD exacerbation is more effective than delayed initiation. We show that their study design, by \"peeking into the future\" to define the timing of treatment initiation, introduces time-related biases, particularly protopathic bias. These biases can be avoided using the \"cloning\" approach to emulate a randomized trial approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We formed a cohort of patients with COPD who had an exacerbation (index) after September 2017, using the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Using the \"cloning\" trial emulation technique, each subject was assigned to both the prompt and the delayed initiator arms as of the index date and censored according to their treatment over time. The Cox model was used to compare the incidence of the first exacerbation after the index exacerbation, over one year, after weighing by inverse probability of censoring. We also replicated the biased approach of the recent studies, based on peeking into the future.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cohort included 91,958 eligible subjects who had an exacerbation, generating 91,958 prompt initiator clones and 91,958 delayed initiator clones. The hazard ratio (HR) of a moderate or severe exacerbation, comparing prompt versus delayed initiators, was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.19), while it was 1.26 (95% CI: 0.81-1.96) for severe exacerbation. The replication of the time-related biased approach comparing prompt with delayed initiation resulted, correspondingly, in HRs of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.65-0.81) and 0.58 (95% CI: 0.46-0.74).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using a trial emulation approach, prompt treatment with single-inhaler triple therapy after a COPD exacerbation was not more effective than delayed treatment at reducing the incidence of subsequent exacerbations. The method used by previous studies, suggesting significant effectiveness with prompt treatment initiation, was affected by time-related biases induced by peeking into the future. A randomized controlled trial can confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":48818,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","volume":"20 ","pages":"2273-2285"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12239917/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prompt versus Delayed Triple Therapy in COPD: Solutions to Time-Related Biases in Observational Studies.\",\"authors\":\"Samy Suissa, Sophie Dell'Aniello, Michael Andrew Webster-Clark, Pierre Ernst\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/COPD.S527497\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent observational studies have reported that prompt initiation of single-inhaler triple therapy after a COPD exacerbation is more effective than delayed initiation. We show that their study design, by \\\"peeking into the future\\\" to define the timing of treatment initiation, introduces time-related biases, particularly protopathic bias. These biases can be avoided using the \\\"cloning\\\" approach to emulate a randomized trial approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We formed a cohort of patients with COPD who had an exacerbation (index) after September 2017, using the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Using the \\\"cloning\\\" trial emulation technique, each subject was assigned to both the prompt and the delayed initiator arms as of the index date and censored according to their treatment over time. The Cox model was used to compare the incidence of the first exacerbation after the index exacerbation, over one year, after weighing by inverse probability of censoring. We also replicated the biased approach of the recent studies, based on peeking into the future.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cohort included 91,958 eligible subjects who had an exacerbation, generating 91,958 prompt initiator clones and 91,958 delayed initiator clones. The hazard ratio (HR) of a moderate or severe exacerbation, comparing prompt versus delayed initiators, was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.19), while it was 1.26 (95% CI: 0.81-1.96) for severe exacerbation. The replication of the time-related biased approach comparing prompt with delayed initiation resulted, correspondingly, in HRs of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.65-0.81) and 0.58 (95% CI: 0.46-0.74).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using a trial emulation approach, prompt treatment with single-inhaler triple therapy after a COPD exacerbation was not more effective than delayed treatment at reducing the incidence of subsequent exacerbations. The method used by previous studies, suggesting significant effectiveness with prompt treatment initiation, was affected by time-related biases induced by peeking into the future. A randomized controlled trial can confirm these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease\",\"volume\":\"20 \",\"pages\":\"2273-2285\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12239917/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S527497\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S527497","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:最近的观察性研究报道,COPD加重后立即开始单吸入器三联治疗比延迟开始治疗更有效。我们表明,他们的研究设计,通过“窥视未来”来定义治疗开始的时间,引入了与时间相关的偏差,特别是原发偏差。这些偏差可以通过“克隆”方法来模拟随机试验方法来避免。方法:我们使用英国临床实践研究数据链(CPRD),对2017年9月后加重(指数)的COPD患者进行队列研究。使用“克隆”试验模拟技术,每个受试者在索引日期被分配到提示和延迟启动臂,并根据他们在一段时间内的治疗进行审查。采用Cox模型比较指标加重后1年内首次加重的发生率,经审查逆概率加权。我们还基于对未来的展望,重复了最近研究中有偏见的方法。结果:该队列包括91958名有急性发作的符合条件的受试者,产生91958个提示启动克隆和91958个延迟启动克隆。中度或重度急性发作的危险比(HR),比较提示和延迟的起始者,为0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.19),而重度急性发作的危险比为1.26 (95% CI: 0.81-1.96)。与时间相关的偏倚方法的复制比较,及时启动和延迟启动的hr分别为0.73 (95% CI: 0.65-0.81)和0.58 (95% CI: 0.46-0.74)。结论:采用试验模拟方法,COPD急性加重后立即使用单吸入器三联治疗在减少后续急性加重发生率方面并不比延迟治疗更有效。以前的研究使用的方法表明,及时开始治疗的效果显著,但受到窥视未来引起的时间相关偏差的影响。一项随机对照试验可以证实这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prompt versus Delayed Triple Therapy in COPD: Solutions to Time-Related Biases in Observational Studies.

Background: Recent observational studies have reported that prompt initiation of single-inhaler triple therapy after a COPD exacerbation is more effective than delayed initiation. We show that their study design, by "peeking into the future" to define the timing of treatment initiation, introduces time-related biases, particularly protopathic bias. These biases can be avoided using the "cloning" approach to emulate a randomized trial approach.

Methods: We formed a cohort of patients with COPD who had an exacerbation (index) after September 2017, using the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Using the "cloning" trial emulation technique, each subject was assigned to both the prompt and the delayed initiator arms as of the index date and censored according to their treatment over time. The Cox model was used to compare the incidence of the first exacerbation after the index exacerbation, over one year, after weighing by inverse probability of censoring. We also replicated the biased approach of the recent studies, based on peeking into the future.

Results: The cohort included 91,958 eligible subjects who had an exacerbation, generating 91,958 prompt initiator clones and 91,958 delayed initiator clones. The hazard ratio (HR) of a moderate or severe exacerbation, comparing prompt versus delayed initiators, was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.19), while it was 1.26 (95% CI: 0.81-1.96) for severe exacerbation. The replication of the time-related biased approach comparing prompt with delayed initiation resulted, correspondingly, in HRs of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.65-0.81) and 0.58 (95% CI: 0.46-0.74).

Conclusion: Using a trial emulation approach, prompt treatment with single-inhaler triple therapy after a COPD exacerbation was not more effective than delayed treatment at reducing the incidence of subsequent exacerbations. The method used by previous studies, suggesting significant effectiveness with prompt treatment initiation, was affected by time-related biases induced by peeking into the future. A randomized controlled trial can confirm these findings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
10.70%
发文量
372
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: An international, peer-reviewed journal of therapeutics and pharmacology focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies and reviews in COPD. Special focus will be given to the pathophysiological processes underlying the disease, intervention programs, patient focused education, and self management protocols. This journal is directed at specialists and healthcare professionals
×
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