Purpose: During the first waves of the coronavirus pandemic, evidence on potential effective treatments was urgently needed. Results from observational studies on the effectiveness of... Show morePurpose: During the first waves of the coronavirus pandemic, evidence on potential effective treatments was urgently needed. Results from observational studies on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) were conflicting, potentially due to biases. We aimed to assess the quality of observational studies on HCQ and its relation to effect sizes.Methods: PubMed was searched on 15 March 2021 for observational studies on the effectiveness of in-hospital use of HCQ in COVID-19 patients, published between 01/01/2020 and 01/03/2021 on. Study quality was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Association between study quality and study characteristics (journal ranking, publication date, and time between submission and publication) and differences between effects sizes found in observational studies compared to those found in RCTs, were assessed using Spearman's correlation.Results: Eighteen of the 33 (55%) included observational studies were scored as critical risk of bias, eleven (33%) as serious risk and only four (12%) as moderate risk of bias. Biases were most often scored as critical in the domains related to selection of participants (n = 13, 39%) and bias due to confounding (n = 8, 24%). There were no significant associations found between the study quality and the characteristics nor between the study quality and the effect estimates.Discussion: Overall, the quality of observational HCQ studies was heterogeneous. Synthesis of evidence of effectiveness of HCQ in COVID-19 should focus on RCTs and carefully consider the added value and quality of observational evidence. Show less
Luijken, K.; Eekelen, R. van; Gardarsdottir, H.; Groenwold, R.H.H.; Geloven, N. van 2023
Purpose: Ideally, the objectives of a pharmacoepidemiologic comparative effectiveness or safety study should dictate its design and data analysis. This paper discusses how defining an estimand is... Show morePurpose: Ideally, the objectives of a pharmacoepidemiologic comparative effectiveness or safety study should dictate its design and data analysis. This paper discusses how defining an estimand is instrumental to this process.Methods: We applied the ICH-E9 (Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials) R1 addendum on estimands - which originally focused on randomized trials - to three examples of observational pharmacoepidemiologic comparative effectiveness and safety studies. Five key elements specify the estimand: the population, contrasted treatments, endpoint, intercurrent events, and population-level summary measure.Results: Different estimands were defined for case studies representing three types of pharmacological treatments: (1) single-dose treatments using a case study about the effect of influenza vaccination versus no vaccination on mortality risk in an adult population of =60 years of age; (2) sustained-treatments using a case study about the effect of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor versus glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist on hypoglycemia risk in treatment of uncontrolled diabetes; and (3) as needed treatments using a case study on the effect of nitroglycerin spray as-needed versus no nitroglycerin on syncope risk in treatment of stabile angina pectoris.Conclusions: The case studies illustrated that a seemingly clear research question can still be open to multiple interpretations. Defining an estimand ensures that the study targets a treatment effect that aligns with the treatment decision the study aims to inform. Estimand definitions further help to inform choices regarding study design and data-analysis and clarify how to interpret study findings. Show less
Ill-defined research questions could be particularly problematic in an epidemiological setting where measurements fluctuate over time due to intercurrent events, such as medication use. When a... Show moreIll-defined research questions could be particularly problematic in an epidemiological setting where measurements fluctuate over time due to intercurrent events, such as medication use. When a research question fails to specify how medication use should be handled methodologically, arbitrary decisions may be made during the analysis phase, which likely leads to a mismatch between the intended question and the performed analysis. The mismatch can result in vastly different or meaningless interpretations of estimated effects. Thus, a research question such as "what is the effect of X on Y? " requires further elaboration, and it should consider whether and how medication use has affected the measurements of interest. In our study, we will discuss how well-defined questions can be formulated when medication use is involved in observational studies. We will distinguish between a situation where an exposure is affected by medication use and where the outcome of interest is affected by medication use. For each setting, we will give examples of different research questions that could be asked depending on how medication use is considered in the estimand and discuss methodological considerations under each question. Show less
Purpose In epidemiological research, measurements affected by medication, for example, blood pressure lowered by antihypertensives, are common. Different ways of handling medication are required... Show morePurpose In epidemiological research, measurements affected by medication, for example, blood pressure lowered by antihypertensives, are common. Different ways of handling medication are required depending on the research questions and whether the affected measurement is the exposure, the outcome, or a confounder. This study aimed to review handling of medication use in observational research. Methods PubMed was searched for etiological studies published between 2015 and 2019 in 15 high-ranked journals from cardiology, diabetes, and epidemiology. We selected studies that analyzed blood pressure, glucose, or lipid measurements (whether exposure, outcome or confounder) by linear or logistic regression. Two reviewers independently recorded how medication use was handled and assessed whether the methods used were in accordance with the research aim. We reported the methods used per variable category (exposure, outcome, confounder). Results A total of 127 articles were included. Most studies did not perform any method to account for medication use (exposure 58%, outcome 53%, and confounder 45%). Restriction (exposure 22%, outcome 23%, and confounders 10%), or adjusting for medication use using a binary indicator were also used frequently (exposure: 18%, outcome: 19%, confounder: 45%). No advanced methods were applied. In 60% of studies, the methods' validity could not be judged due to ambiguous reporting of the research aim. Invalid approaches were used in 28% of the studies, mostly when the affected variable was the outcome (36%). Conclusion Many studies ambiguously stated the research aim and used invalid methods to handle medication use. Researchers should consider a valid methodological approach based on their research question. Show less
Background Guidance reports for observational comparative effectiveness and drug safety research recommend implementing a new-user design whenever possible, since it reduces the risk of selection... Show moreBackground Guidance reports for observational comparative effectiveness and drug safety research recommend implementing a new-user design whenever possible, since it reduces the risk of selection bias in exposure effect estimation compared to a prevalent-user design. The uptake of this guidance has not been studied extensively.Methods We reviewed 89 observational effectiveness and safety cohort studies published in six pharmacoepidemiological journals in 2018 and 2019. We developed an extraction tool to assess how frequently new-user and prevalent-user designs were reported to be implemented. For studies that implemented a new-user design in both treatment arms, we extracted information about the extent to which the moment of meeting eligibility criteria, treatment initiation, and start of follow-up were reported to be aligned.Results Of the 89 studies included, 40% reported implementing a new-user design for both the study exposure arm and the comparator arm, while 13% reported implementing a prevalent-user design in both arms. The moment of meeting eligibility criteria, treatment initiation, and start of follow-up were reported to be aligned in both treatment arms in 53% of studies that reported implementing a new-user design. We provided examples of studies that minimized the risk of introducing bias due to unclear definition of time origin in unexposed participants, immortal time, or a time lag.Conclusions Almost half of the included studies reported implementing a new-user design. Implications of misalignment of study design origin were difficult to assess because it would require explicit reporting of the target estimand in original studies. We recommend that the choice for a particular study time origin is explicitly motivated to enable assessment of validity of the study. Show less
Hempenius, M.; Luijken, K.; Boer, A. de; Klungel, O.; Groenwold, R.; Gardarsdottir, H. 2020
Purpose Exposure definitions vary across pharmacoepidemiological studies. Therefore, transparent reporting of exposure definitions is important for interpretation of published study results. We... Show morePurpose Exposure definitions vary across pharmacoepidemiological studies. Therefore, transparent reporting of exposure definitions is important for interpretation of published study results. We aimed to assess the quality of reporting of exposure to identify where improvement may be needed.Method We systematically reviewed observational pharmacoepidemiological studies that used routinely collected health data, published in 2017 in six pharmacoepidemiological journals. Reporting of exposure was scored using 11 items of the ISPE-ISPOR guideline on reporting of pharmacoepidemiological studies.Results Of the 91 studies included, all studies reported the type of exposure (100%), while most reported the exposure risk window (85%) and the exposure assessment window (98%). Operationalization of the exposure window was described infrequently: 16% (14/90) of the studies explicitly reported the presence or absence of an induction period if applicable, 11% (5/47), and 35% (17/49) reported how stockpiling and gaps between exposure episodes were handled, respectively, and 35% (17/49) explicitly mentioned the exposure extension. Switching/add-on was reported in 62% (50/81). How switching between drugs was dealt with and specific drug codes were reported in 52 (57%) and 24 (26%) studies, respectively.Conclusion Publications of pharmacoepidemiological studies frequently reported the type of exposure, the exposure risk window, and the exposure assessment window. However, more details on exposure assessment are needed, especially when it concerns the operationalization of the exposure risk window (eg, the presence or absence of an induction period or exposure extension, handling of stockpiling and gaps, and specific codes), to allow for correct interpretation, reproducibility, and assessment of validity. Show less
