Article

Future Cases as Present Controls to Adjust for Exposure Trend Bias in Case-only Studies

Department of Community Health-Epidemiology, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) (Impact Factor: 6.18). 07/2011; 22(4):568-74. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31821d09cd
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Self-matched case-only studies (such as the case-crossover or self-controlled case-series method) control by design for time-invariant confounders (measured or unmeasured), but they do not control for confounders that vary with time. A bidirectional case-crossover design can be used to adjust for exposure-time trends. In pharmacoepidemiology, however, illness often influences future use of medications, making a bidirectional design problematic. Suissa's case-time-control design combines a case-crossover and case-control design, and adjusts for exposure-trend bias in the cases' self-controlled odds ratio by dividing that ratio by the corresponding self-controlled odds ratio in a concurrent matched control group. However, if not well matched, the control group may reintroduce selection bias. We propose a "case-case-time-control" that involves crossover analyses in cases and future-case controls. This person-time sampling strategy improves matching by restricting controls to future cases. We evaluate the proposed study design through simulations and analysis of a theoretically null relationship using Veterans Administration (VA) data. Simulation studies show that the case-case-time-control can adjust for exposure trends while controlling for time-invariant confounders. Use of an inappropriate control group left case-time-control analyses biased by exposure-time trends. When analyzing the relationship between vitamin exposure and stroke, using data on 3192 patients in the VA system, a case-crossover odds ratio of 1.5 (95% confidence interval = 1.3-1.7) was reduced to 1.1 (0.9-1.3) when divided by the concurrent exposure trend odds ratio (1.4) in matched future cases. This applied example demonstrates how our approach can adjust for exposure trends observed across time axes.

0 Followers
 · 
104 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Large health care databases are used extensively for pharmacoepidemiologic studies. Unique methodological issues arise when applying self-controlled designs (i.e., using within-person comparisons) for active surveillance of newly marketed drugs. We use 3 examples to illustrate bias related to population-level exposure time trends when using outcome-indexed self-controlled (i.e., case-crossover) designs for active surveillance and evaluate the ability of the case-time-control design to adjust for bias from population-level exposure time trends. We mimicked active surveillance by conducting sequential analyses after market entry for 3 medications and outcomes (valdecoxib for myocardial infarction (MI), aripiprazole for MI, and telithromycin for acute liver failure) using Medicaid Analytic eXtracts (from all 50 US states, 2000-2006). The case-crossover exposure odds ratio (EOR) in the months immediately following valdecoxib market entry implausibly suggested a 12-fold higher risk of MI during exposed time relative to unexposed time; among age-, sex-, and time-matched controls, the corresponding EOR of 4.5 indicated strong population-level exposure time trends. Over subsequent monitoring periods, case-crossover EORs rapidly dropped to 1.4. Adjustment for bias from population-level exposure time trends with the case-time-control analysis resulted in more consistent associations between valdecoxib and MI across sequential monitoring periods. Similar results were observed in each example. Strong population-level exposure time trends can bias case-crossover studies conducted among "first-wave" users of newly marketed medications. Suggested strategies can help assess and adjust for population-level exposure time trends.
    American Journal of Epidemiology 08/2014; 180(6). DOI:10.1093/aje/kwu162 · 4.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Malaria is a highly climate-sensitive vector-borne infectious disease that still represents a significant public health problem in Huaihe River Basin. However, little comprehensive information about the burden of malaria caused by flooding and waterlogging is available from this region. This study aims to quantitatively assess the impact of flooding and waterlogging on the burden of malaria in a county of Anhui Province, China. A mixed method evaluation was conducted. A case-crossover study was firstly performed to evaluate the relationship between daily number of cases of malaria and flooding and waterlogging from May to October 2007 in Mengcheng County, China. Stratified Cox models were used to examine the lagged time and hazard ratios (HRs) of the risk of flooding and waterlogging on malaria. Years lived with disability (YLDs) of malaria attributable to flooding and waterlogging were then estimated based on the WHO framework of calculating potential impact fraction in the Global Burden of Disease study. A total of 3683 malaria were notified during the study period. The strongest effect was shown with a 25-day lag for flooding and a 7-day lag for waterlogging. Multivariable analysis showed that an increased risk of malaria was significantly associated with flooding alone [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) = 1.467, 95% CI = 1.257, 1.713], waterlogging alone (AHR = 1.879, 95% CI = 1.696, 2.121), and flooding and waterlogging together (AHR = 2.926, 95% CI = 2.576, 3.325). YLDs per 1000 of malaria attributable to flooding alone, waterlogging alone and flooding and waterlogging together were 0.009 per day, 0.019 per day and 0.022 per day, respectively. Flooding and waterlogging can lead to higher burden of malaria in the study area. Public health action should be taken to avoid and control a potential risk of malaria epidemics after these two weather disasters.
    PLoS ONE 05/2014; 9(5):e97520. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0097520 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The conditional logistic regression model is the standard tool for the analysis of epidemiological studies in which one or more cases (the event of interest), are individually matched with one or more controls (not showing the event). These situations arise, for example, in matched case–control studies and self–matched case–only studies (such as the case–crossover [1], the case–time–control [2] or the case–case–time–control [3] designs). Usually, odds ratios are estimated by maximizing the conditional log–likelihood function and variable selection is performed by conventional manual or automatic selection procedures, such as stepwise. These techniques are, however, unsatisfactory in sparse, high-dimensional settings in which penalized methods, such as the lasso (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) [4], have emerged as an alternative. In particular, the lasso and related methods have recently been adapted to conditional logistic regression [5]. The R package clogitLasso implements, for small to moderate sized samples (less than 3, 000 observations), the algorithms discussed in [5], based on the stratified discrete-time Cox propor-tional hazards model and depending on the penalized package [6]. For large datasets, clogit-Lasso computes the highly efficient procedures proposed in [7, 8], based on an IRLS (iteratively reweighted least squares) algorithm [9] and depending on the lassoshooting package [10]. The most common situations that involve 1:1, 1:M and N:M matching are available.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
52 Downloads
Available from
Jun 3, 2014