Suppr超能文献

在非干预性上市后安全性研究中,意向性分析(ITT)的实际效果如何?我们可以做得更好。

How real is intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis in non-interventional post authorization safety studies? We can do better.

作者信息

Kiri Victor A, MacKenzie Gilbert

机构信息

Peri-Approval, Clinical Research Services, PAREXEL International, Uxbridge, UK.

出版信息

Curr Drug Saf. 2009 May;4(2):137-42. doi: 10.2174/157488609788173008.

Abstract

Although cohort studies which are based on intention-to-treat (ITT) approach offer a simple design with data which are simpler to analyse and results easier to interpret, such studies also intrinsically assume that any time-varying treatment effect that exits can be adequately estimated by a fixed-effect component. However, such an assumption may not reflect real-life drug use. Reflection of real-life clinical practice is a major strength of epidemiologic safety studies. The failure to properly reflect reality may result in effect under-estimation leading to false and irreproducible conclusions due to exposure misclassification. In effect, the use of nested case-control design is a concesion that ITT in cohort design may not be adequate. But the nested design also has its own sources of bias, including confounding by indication. We present an overview of the counter-matched version of the nested case-control, case-crossover, case-in-time, case series and case-cohort designs as alternatives in prospective post-authorization safety studies.

摘要

尽管基于意向性治疗(ITT)方法的队列研究提供了一种简单的设计,其数据更易于分析且结果更易于解释,但此类研究本质上也假定,任何存在的随时间变化的治疗效果都可以通过固定效应成分得到充分估计。然而,这样的假设可能无法反映现实生活中的药物使用情况。反映现实生活中的临床实践是流行病学安全性研究的一个主要优势。未能正确反映现实可能会导致效应估计不足,由于暴露错误分类而得出错误且不可重复的结论。实际上,使用巢式病例对照设计是一种让步,即队列设计中的ITT可能并不充分。但巢式设计也有其自身的偏倚来源,包括指示性混杂。我们概述了巢式病例对照、病例交叉、病例即时、病例系列和病例队列设计的反匹配版本,作为上市后前瞻性安全性研究的替代方案。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验