4.7 Article

Factors Influencing Background Incidence Rate Calculation: Systematic Empirical Evaluation Across an International Network of Observational Databases

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.814198

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; vaccine; adverse events; incidence rates; background rates; sensitivity analysis

Funding

  1. US National Library of Medicine [R01 LM006910]
  2. US Food and Drug Administration CBER BEST Initiative [75F40120D00039]
  3. United Kingdom National Institute of Health Research (NIHR)
  4. European Medicines Agency, Innovative Medicines Initiative [806968, 2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study systematically examined the sensitivity of background incidence rates to different study parameters. The results showed that the variation of background rates is not only influenced by age and database, but also by other parameters even after adjusting for age and sex. The incidence rates vary significantly across different age groups, and the choice of time-at-risk start has a significant impact on the results. The choice of database, clean window, and time-at-risk duration also significantly influence the incidence rates.
Objective: Background incidence rates are routinely used in safety studies to evaluate an association of an exposure and outcome. Systematic research on sensitivity of rates to the choice of the study parameters is lacking.Materials and Methods: We used 12 data sources to systematically examine the influence of age, race, sex, database, time-at-risk, season and year, prior observation and clean window on incidence rates using 15 adverse events of special interest for COVID-19 vaccines as an example. For binary comparisons we calculated incidence rate ratios and performed random-effect meta-analysis.Results: We observed a wide variation of background rates that goes well beyond age and database effects previously observed. While rates vary up to a factor of 1,000 across age groups, even after adjusting for age and sex, the study showed residual bias due to the other parameters. Rates were highly influenced by the choice of anchoring (e.g., health visit, vaccination, or arbitrary date) for the time-at-risk start. Anchoring on a healthcare encounter yielded higher incidence comparing to a random date, especially for short time-at-risk. Incidence rates were highly influenced by the choice of the database (varying by up to a factor of 100), clean window choice and time-at-risk duration, and less so by secular or seasonal trends.Conclusion: Comparing background to observed rates requires appropriate adjustment and careful time-at-risk start and duration choice. Results should be interpreted in the context of study parameter choices.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available