AIMS: The purpose of this study was to describe how washout period duration affects the size and accuracy of retrospective incident user cohorts. MATERIALS & METHODS: MarketScan commercial claims data from 2007 to 2010 were used and included adults with an antihyperlipidemic, antidiabetic or antidepressant claim in 2010. Incident user cohorts using 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-month washouts were created and changes in sample size and incident user misclassification were described. RESULTS & CONCLUSION: The 6- and 12-month washouts excluded 75 and 85% of the samples, respectively. Half of subjects in the 6-month washout cohorts were actually prevalent users, and the 12-month washout period resulted in 30% misclassified. Using common washout periods of 6-12 months may insufficiently address prevalent user bias in large commercial claims databases.
AIMS: The purpose of this study was to describe how washout period duration affects the size and accuracy of retrospective incident user cohorts. MATERIALS & METHODS: MarketScan commercial claims data from 2007 to 2010 were used and included adults with an antihyperlipidemic, antidiabetic or antidepressant claim in 2010. Incident user cohorts using 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-month washouts were created and changes in sample size and incident user misclassification were described. RESULTS & CONCLUSION: The 6- and 12-month washouts excluded 75 and 85% of the samples, respectively. Half of subjects in the 6-month washout cohorts were actually prevalent users, and the 12-month washout period resulted in 30% misclassified. Using common washout periods of 6-12 months may insufficiently address prevalent user bias in large commercial claims databases.
Entities:
Keywords:
comparative effectiveness research; incident user design; methods; pharmacoepidemiology; research design; secondary databases; selection bias
Authors: Wayne A Ray; C Michael Stein; James R Daugherty; Kathi Hall; Patrick G Arbogast; Marie R Griffin Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-10-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sebastian Schneeweiss; Amanda R Patrick; Til Stürmer; M Alan Brookhart; Jerry Avorn; Malcolm Maclure; Kenneth J Rothman; Robert J Glynn Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Matthew L Maciejewski; Chris L Bryson; Virginia Wang; Mark Perkins; Chuan-Fen Liu Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2013-02-13 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Patricia Berglund; Olga Demler; Robert Jin; Doreen Koretz; Kathleen R Merikangas; A John Rush; Ellen E Walters; Philip S Wang Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Bret A Nicks; Manish N Shah; David H Adler; Aveh Bastani; Christopher W Baugh; Jeffrey M Caterino; Carol L Clark; Deborah B Diercks; Judd E Hollander; Susan E Malveau; Daniel K Nishijima; Kirk A Stiffler; Alan B Storrow; Scott T Wilber; Annick N Yagapen; Benjamin C Sun Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Wei-Hsuan Lo-Ciganic; Julie M Donohue; Bobby L Jones; Subashan Perera; Joshua M Thorpe; Carolyn T Thorpe; Zachary A Marcum; Walid F Gellad Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Brent A Williams; Stephen Voyce; Stephen Sidney; Véronique L Roger; Timothy B Plante; Sharon Larson; Michael J LaMonte; Darwin R Labarthe; Bailey M DeBarmore; Alexander R Chang; Alanna M Chamberlain; Catherine P Benziger Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Jeremy A Rassen; Dorothee B Bartels; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Amanda R Patrick; William Murk Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 4.790