BACKGROUND: Recent years have witnessed a growing body of observational literature on the association between glucose-lowering treatments and cardiovascular disease. However, many of the studies are based on designs or analyses that inadequately address the methodological challenges involved. METHODS: We reviewed recent observational literature on the association between glucose-lowering medications and cardiovascular outcomes and assessed the design and analysis methods used, with a focus on their ability to address specific methodological challenges. We describe and illustrate these methodological issues and their impact on observed associations, providing examples from the reviewed literature. We suggest approaches that may be employed to manage these methodological challenges. RESULTS: From the evaluation of 81 publications of observational investigations assessing the association between glucose-lowering treatments and cardiovascular outcomes, we identified the following methodological challenges: 1) handling of temporality in administrative databases; 2) handling of risks that vary with time and treatment duration; 3) definitions of the exposure risk window; 4) handling of exposures that change over time; and 5) handling of confounding by indication. Most of these methodological challenges may be suitably addressed through application of appropriate methods. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Observational research plays an increasingly important role in the evaluation of the clinical effects of diabetes treatment. Implementation of appropriate research methods holds the promise of reducing the potential for spurious findings and the risk that the spurious findings will mislead the medical community about risks and benefits of diabetes medications.
BACKGROUND: Recent years have witnessed a growing body of observational literature on the association between glucose-lowering treatments and cardiovascular disease. However, many of the studies are based on designs or analyses that inadequately address the methodological challenges involved. METHODS: We reviewed recent observational literature on the association between glucose-lowering medications and cardiovascular outcomes and assessed the design and analysis methods used, with a focus on their ability to address specific methodological challenges. We describe and illustrate these methodological issues and their impact on observed associations, providing examples from the reviewed literature. We suggest approaches that may be employed to manage these methodological challenges. RESULTS: From the evaluation of 81 publications of observational investigations assessing the association between glucose-lowering treatments and cardiovascular outcomes, we identified the following methodological challenges: 1) handling of temporality in administrative databases; 2) handling of risks that vary with time and treatment duration; 3) definitions of the exposure risk window; 4) handling of exposures that change over time; and 5) handling of confounding by indication. Most of these methodological challenges may be suitably addressed through application of appropriate methods. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Observational research plays an increasingly important role in the evaluation of the clinical effects of diabetes treatment. Implementation of appropriate research methods holds the promise of reducing the potential for spurious findings and the risk that the spurious findings will mislead the medical community about risks and benefits of diabetes medications.
Authors: Shoko Maru; Gary G Koch; Monika Stender; Douglas Clark; Laura Gibowski; Hans Petri; Alice D White; Ross J Simpson Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Catherine B Johannes; Carol E Koro; Sherry G Quinn; Jennifer A Cutone; John D Seeger Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Alana Choy-Shan; Andrew Zinn; Binita Shah; Ann Danoff; Robert Donnino; Arthur Z Schwartzbard; Jeffrey D Lorin; Eugene Grossi; Steven P Sedlis Journal: Coron Artery Dis Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 1.439
Authors: Christianne L Roumie; Adriana M Hung; Robert A Greevy; Carlos G Grijalva; Xulei Liu; Harvey J Murff; Tom A Elasy; Marie R Griffin Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-11-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Elisabetta Patorno; Elizabeth M Garry; Amanda R Patrick; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Victoria G Gillet; Olesya Zorina; Dorothee B Bartels; John D Seeger Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Elisabetta Patorno; Chandrasekar Gopalakrishnan; Kimberly G Brodovicz; Andrea Meyers; Dorothee B Bartels; Jun Liu; Martin Kulldorff; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Elisabetta Patorno; Ajinkya Pawar; Jessica M Franklin; Mehdi Najafzadeh; Anouk Déruaz-Luyet; Kimberly G Brodovicz; Steven Sambevski; Lily G Bessette; Adrian J Santiago Ortiz; Martin Kulldorff; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Katsiaryna Bykov; Mengdong He; Jessica M Franklin; Elizabeth M Garry; John D Seeger; Elisabetta Patorno Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: HoJin Shin; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Robert J Glynn; Elisabetta Patorno Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: James S Floyd; Kerri L Wiggins; Mark Christiansen; Sascha Dublin; William T Longstreth; Nicholas L Smith; Barbara McKnight; Susan R Heckbert; Noel S Weiss; Bruce M Psaty Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2015-11-08 Impact factor: 2.890