Suppr超能文献

Methodological challenges to control for immortal time bias in addressing drug effects in type 2 diabetes.

作者信息

Yang Xi-Lin, Huo Xiao-Xu, Chan Juliana Cn

机构信息

Xi-Lin Yang, Xiao-Xu Huo, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300070, China.

出版信息

World J Methodol. 2015 Sep 26;5(3):122-6. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v5.i3.122.

Abstract

There are multiple biases in using observational studies to examine treatment effects such as those from prevalent drug users, immortal time and drug indications. We used renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors and statins as reference drugs with proven efficacies in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examined their effectiveness in the prospective Hong Kong Diabetes Registry using adjustment methods proposed in the literature. Using time-dependent exposures to drug treatments yielded greatly inflated hazard ratios (HR) regarding the treatment effects of these drugs for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in type 2 diabetes. These errors were probably due to changing indications to use these drugs during follow up periods, especially at the time of drug commencement making time-dependent analysis extremely problematic. Using time-fixed analysis with exclusion of immortal time and adjustment for confounders at baseline and/or during follow-up periods, the HR of RAS inhibitors for CVD was comparable to that in RCT. The result supported the use of the Registry for performing pharmacoepidemiological analysis which revealed an attenuated low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol related cancer risk with RAS inhibitors. On the other hand, time-fixed analysis with including immortal time and adjustment for confounders at baseline and/or during follow-up periods, the HR of statins for CVD was similar to that in the RCT. Our results highlight the complexity and difficulty in removing these biases. We call for validations of the methods to cope with immortal time and drug use indications before applying them to particular research questions, so to avoid making erroneous conclusions.

摘要

相似文献

3
Addressing different biases in analysing drug use on cancer risk in diabetes in non-clinical trial settings--what, why and how?
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012 Jul;14(7):579-85. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2011.01551.x. Epub 2012 Jan 17.
4
Lower Risk of Death With SGLT2 Inhibitors in Observational Studies: Real or Bias?
Diabetes Care. 2018 Jan;41(1):6-10. doi: 10.2337/dc17-1223.
5
Statins and lower mortality in rheumatic diseases: An effect of immortal time bias?
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2021 Feb;51(1):211-218. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2020.11.010. Epub 2020 Dec 19.
6
First-line drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system versus other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for hypertension.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 11;1:CD008170. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008170.pub2.
7
Methodological biases in observational hospital studies of COVID-19 treatment effectiveness: pitfalls and potential.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2024 Mar 21;11:1362192. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1362192. eCollection 2024.
8
Diabetes and cancer: the mechanistic implications of epidemiological analyses from the Hong Kong Diabetes Registry.
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2012 Jul;28(5):379-87. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.2287. Epub 2012 Feb 8.
9
Beta-blockers for hypertension.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jan 20;1(1):CD002003. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002003.pub5.
10
Methodological evaluation of bias in observational coronavirus disease 2019 studies on drug effectiveness.
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Jul;27(7):949-957. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.03.003. Epub 2021 Apr 1.

引用本文的文献

1
Decreased incidence of glaucoma in children with asthma using inhaled corticosteroid: a cohort study.
Oncotarget. 2017 Nov 1;8(62):105463-105471. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.22252. eCollection 2017 Dec 1.

本文引用的文献

1
Drug-subphenotype interactions for cancer in type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2015 Jun;11(6):372-9. doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2015.37. Epub 2015 Mar 24.
6
Saxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
N Engl J Med. 2013 Oct 3;369(14):1317-26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1307684. Epub 2013 Sep 2.
7
Synergistic effects of low LDL cholesterol with other factors for the risk of cancer in type 2 diabetes: the Hong Kong Diabetes Registry.
Acta Diabetol. 2012 Dec;49 Suppl 1:S185-93. doi: 10.1007/s00592-012-0409-y. Epub 2012 Jun 22.
8
Addressing different biases in analysing drug use on cancer risk in diabetes in non-clinical trial settings--what, why and how?
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012 Jul;14(7):579-85. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2011.01551.x. Epub 2012 Jan 17.
9
Management of type 2 diabetes: new and future developments in treatment.
Lancet. 2011 Jul 9;378(9786):182-97. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60207-9. Epub 2011 Jun 24.
10
Meta-analysis of trial data may support a causal role of hyperglycaemia in cancer.
Diabetologia. 2011 Mar;54(3):709-10; author reply 711-2. doi: 10.1007/s00125-010-2017-0. Epub 2010 Dec 14.

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