Alarkawi Dunia, Ali M Sanni, Bliuc Dana, Center Jacqueline R, Prieto-Alhambra Daniel
Bone Biology Division Garvan Institute of Medical Research School of Medicine University of New South Wales Sydney Australia.
Centre for Statistics in Medicine and Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS) University of Oxford Oxford UK.
JBMR Plus. 2018 Apr 30;2(4):187-194. doi: 10.1002/jbm4.10051. eCollection 2018 Jul.
Pharmacoepidemiology is used extensively in osteoporosis research and involves the study of the use and effects of drugs in large numbers of people. Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard in assessing treatment efficacy and safety. However, their results can have limited external validity when applied to day-to-day patients. Pharmacoepidemiological studies aim to assess the effect/s of treatments in actual practice conditions, but they are limited by the quality, completeness, and inherent bias due to confounding. Sources of information include prospectively collected (primary) as well as readily available routinely collected (secondary) (eg, electronic medical records, administrative/claims databases) data. Although the former enable the collection of ad hoc measurements, the latter provide a unique opportunity for the study of large representative populations and for the assessment of rare events at relatively low cost. Observational cohort and case-control studies, the most commonly implemented study designs in pharmacoepidemiology, each have their strengths and limitations. However, the choice of the study design depends on the research question that needs to be answered. Despite the many advantages of observational studies, they also have limitations. First, missing data is a common issue in routine data, frequently dealt with using multiple imputation. Second, confounding by indication arises because of the lack of randomization; multivariable regression and more specific techniques such as propensity scores (adjustment, matching, stratification, trimming, or weighting) are used to minimize such biases. In addition, immortal time bias (time period during which a subject is artefactually event-free by study design) and time-varying confounding (patient characteristics changing over time) are other types of biases usually accounted for using time-dependent modeling. Finally, residual "uncontrolled" confounding is difficult to assess, and hence to account for it, sensitivity analyses and specific methods (eg, instrumental variables) should be considered.
药物流行病学在骨质疏松症研究中被广泛应用,涉及对大量人群中药物使用情况及其效果的研究。随机对照试验被认为是评估治疗效果和安全性的金标准。然而,当将其结果应用于日常患者时,其外部有效性可能有限。药物流行病学研究旨在评估实际临床环境中治疗的效果,但受到数据质量、完整性以及因混杂因素导致的固有偏倚的限制。信息来源包括前瞻性收集的(原始)数据以及现成的常规收集的(二手)数据(例如电子病历、行政/理赔数据库)。虽然前者能够收集特定测量数据,但后者为研究具有代表性的大规模人群以及以相对低成本评估罕见事件提供了独特机会。观察性队列研究和病例对照研究是药物流行病学中最常用的研究设计,各有其优缺点。然而,研究设计的选择取决于需要回答的研究问题。尽管观察性研究有诸多优点,但也存在局限性。首先缺失数据是常规数据中的常见问题,通常采用多重填补法处理。其次由于缺乏随机分组,会出现指示性混杂;多变量回归以及更具体的技术如倾向得分(调整、匹配、分层、修剪或加权)用于尽量减少此类偏倚。此外,永生时间偏倚(因研究设计导致受试者在某时间段内人为无事件发生)和随时间变化的混杂因素(患者特征随时间变化)是通常采用时间依赖性模型来考虑的其他类型偏倚。最后,残余“未控制”的混杂因素难以评估,因此为了考虑这一点,应考虑敏感性分析和特定方法(例如工具变量)。