4.2 Article

User-only design to assess drug effectiveness in clinical practice: application to bisphosphonates and secondary prevention of fractures

期刊

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
卷 23, 期 8, 页码 859-867

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3650

关键词

bisphosphonates; confounding; fracture; propensity score; user-only design; pharmacoepidemiology

资金

  1. AIFA - the Italian Medicines Agency-(AIFA), Rome, Italy [FARM06R9YY]
  2. Fondo d' Ateneo per la Ricerca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Different strategies applicable to control for confounding by indication in observational studies were compared in a large population-based study regarding the effect of bisphosphonates (BPs) for secondary prevention of fractures. Methods The cohort was drawn from healthcare utilization databases of 13 Italian territorial units. Patients aged 55 years or more who were hospitalized for fracture during 2003-2005 entered into the cohort. A nested case-control design was used to compare BPs use in cohort members who did (cases) and who did not experience (controls) a new fracture until 2007 (outcome). Three designs were employed: conventional-matching (D-1), propensity score-matching (D-2), and user-only (D-3) designs. They differed for (i) cohort composition, restricted to patients who received BPs straight after cohort entry (D-3); (ii) using propensity score for case-control matching (D-2); and (iii) compared groups of BPs users versus no users (D-1 and D-2) and long-term versus short-term users (D-3). Results Bisphosphonate users had odds ratios (95% confidence interval) of 1.20 (1.01 to 1.44) and 0.95 (0.74 to 1.24) by applying D-1 and D-2 designs, respectively. Statistical evidence that long-term BPs use protects the outcome onset with respect to short-term use was observed for user-only design (D-3) being the corresponding odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.64 (0.44 to 0.93). Conclusions User-only design yielded closer results to those seen in RCTs. This approach is one possible strategy to account for confounding by indication. Copyright (C) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据