Katsiaryna Bykov1, Jessica M Franklin1, Hu Li2, Joshua J Gagne1. 1. From the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 2. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-controlled designs, both case-crossover and self-controlled case series, are well suited for evaluating outcomes of drug-drug interactions in electronic healthcare data. Their comparative performance in this context, however, is unknown. METHODS: We simulated cohorts of patients exposed to two drugs: a chronic drug (object) and a short-term drug (precipitant) with an associated interaction of 2.0 on the odds ratio scale. We analyzed cohorts using case-crossover and self-controlled case series designs evaluating exposure to the precipitant drug within person-time exposed to the object drug. Scenarios evaluated violations of key design assumptions: (1) time-varying, within-person confounding; (2) time trend in precipitant drug exposure prevalence; (3) nontransient precipitant exposure; and (4) event-dependent object drug discontinuation. RESULTS: Case-crossover analysis produced biased estimates when 30% of patients persisted on the precipitant drug (estimated OR 2.85) and when the use of the precipitant drug was increasing in simulated cohorts (estimated OR 2.56). Self-controlled case series produced biased estimates when patients discontinued the object drug following the occurrence of an outcome (estimated incidence ratio [IR] of 2.09 [50% of patients stopping therapy] and 2.22 [90%]). Both designs yielded similarly biased estimates in the presence of time-varying, within-person confounding. CONCLUSION: In settings with independent or rare outcomes and no substantial event-dependent censoring (<50%), self-controlled case series may be preferable to case-crossover design for evaluating outcomes of drug-drug interactions. With frequent event-dependent drug discontinuation, a case-crossover design may be preferable provided there are no time-related trends in drug exposure.
BACKGROUND: Self-controlled designs, both case-crossover and self-controlled case series, are well suited for evaluating outcomes of drug-drug interactions in electronic healthcare data. Their comparative performance in this context, however, is unknown. METHODS: We simulated cohorts of patients exposed to two drugs: a chronic drug (object) and a short-term drug (precipitant) with an associated interaction of 2.0 on the odds ratio scale. We analyzed cohorts using case-crossover and self-controlled case series designs evaluating exposure to the precipitant drug within person-time exposed to the object drug. Scenarios evaluated violations of key design assumptions: (1) time-varying, within-person confounding; (2) time trend in precipitant drug exposure prevalence; (3) nontransient precipitant exposure; and (4) event-dependent object drug discontinuation. RESULTS: Case-crossover analysis produced biased estimates when 30% of patients persisted on the precipitant drug (estimated OR 2.85) and when the use of the precipitant drug was increasing in simulated cohorts (estimated OR 2.56). Self-controlled case series produced biased estimates when patients discontinued the object drug following the occurrence of an outcome (estimated incidence ratio [IR] of 2.09 [50% of patients stopping therapy] and 2.22 [90%]). Both designs yielded similarly biased estimates in the presence of time-varying, within-person confounding. CONCLUSION: In settings with independent or rare outcomes and no substantial event-dependent censoring (<50%), self-controlled case series may be preferable to case-crossover design for evaluating outcomes of drug-drug interactions. With frequent event-dependent drug discontinuation, a case-crossover design may be preferable provided there are no time-related trends in drug exposure.
Authors: Malcolm Maclure; Bruce Fireman; Jennifer C Nelson; Wei Hua; Azadeh Shoaibi; Antonio Paredes; David Madigan Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: S Hennessy; C E Leonard; J J Gagne; J H Flory; X Han; C M Brensinger; W B Bilker Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Ian J Douglas; Stephen J W Evans; Aroon D Hingorani; Anthony M Grosso; Adam Timmis; Harry Hemingway; Liam Smeeth Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-07-10