Dataset Information

Comparison of two methods to estimate adverse events in the IBEAS Study (Ibero-American study of adverse events): cross-sectional versus retrospective cohort design.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Adverse events (AEs) epidemiology is the first step to improve practice in the healthcare system. Usually, the preferred method used to estimate the magnitude of the problem is the retrospective cohort study design, with retrospective reviews of the medical records. However this data collection involves a sophisticated sampling plan, and a process of intensive review of sometimes very heavy and complex medical records. Cross-sectional survey is also a valid and feasible methodology to study AEs. OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study is to compare AEs detection using two different methodologies: cross-sectional versus retrospective cohort design. SETTING:Secondary and tertiary hospitals in five countries: Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Peru. PARTICIPANTS:The IBEAS Study is a cross-sectional survey with a sample size of 11 379 patients. The retrospective cohort study was obtained from a 10% random sample proportional to hospital size from the entire IBEAS Study population. METHODS:This study compares the 1-day prevalence of the AEs obtained in the IBEAS Study with the incidence obtained through the retrospective cohort study. RESULTS:The prevalence of patients with AEs was 10.47% (95% CI 9.90 to 11.03) (1191/11 379), while the cumulative incidence of the retrospective cohort study was 19.76% (95% CI 17.35% to 22.17%) (215/1088). In both studies the highest risk of suffering AEs was seen in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients. Comorbid patients and patients with medical devices showed higher risk. CONCLUSION:The retrospective cohort design, although requires more resources, allows to detect more AEs than the cross-sectional design.

SUBMITTER: Aranaz Andres JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5640028 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of two methods to estimate adverse events in the IBEAS Study (Ibero-American study of adverse events): cross-sectional versus retrospective cohort design.

Aranaz Andrés Jesus Maria JM Limón Ramírez Ramon R Aibar Remón Carlos C Gea-Velázquez de Castro Maria Teresa MT Bolúmar Francisco F Hernández-Aguado Ildefonso I López Fresneña Nieves N Díaz-Agero Pérez Cristina C Terol García Enrique E Michel Philippe P Sousa Paulo P Larizgoitia Jauregui Itziar I

BMJ open 20171008 10

<h4>Background</h4>Adverse events (AEs) epidemiology is the first step to improve practice in the healthcare system. Usually, the preferred method used to estimate the magnitude of the problem is the retrospective cohort study design, with retrospective reviews of the medical records. However this data collection involves a sophisticated sampling plan, and a process of intensive review of sometimes very heavy and complex medical records. Cross-sectional survey is also a valid and feasible method ...[more]

PMID: 28993382

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: An international collaborative study was conducted to determine the demographic and clinical profiles of Hispanic/Latinx endometriosis patients from Latin America and Spain using the Minimal Clinical Questionnaire developed by the World Endometriosis Research Foundation (WERF) Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonization Project (EPHect). Methods: This is a cross-sectional study to collect self-reported data on demographics, lifestyle, and endometriosis symptoms of Hispanic/Latinx endometriosis patients from April 2019 to February 2020. The EPHect Minimal Clinical Questionnaire (EPQ-M) was translated into Spanish. Comprehension and length of the translated survey were assessed by Spanish-speaking women. An electronic link was distributed via social media of endometriosis patient associations from 11 Latin American countries and Spain. Descriptive statistics (frequency, means and SD, percentages, and proportions) and correlations were conducted using SPSSv26. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 1,378 participants from 23 countries; 94.6% had self-reported diagnosis of endometriosis. Diagnostic delay was 6.6 years. Most participants had higher education, private health insurance, and were employed. The most common symptoms were back/leg pain (85.4%) and fatigue (80.7%). The mean number of children was 1.5; 34.4% had miscarriages; the mean length of infertility was 3.7 years; 47.2% reported pregnancy complications. The most common hormone treatment was oral contraceptives (47.0%). The most common comorbidities were migraines (24.1%), polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) (22.2%), and irritable bowel syndrome (21.1%). Most participants (97.0%) experienced pelvic pain during menses; for 78.7%, pain was severe; 86.4% reported dyspareunia. The mean age of dysmenorrhea onset was 16.2 years (SD ± 6.1). Hormone treatments were underutilized, while impact was substantial. Pain catastrophizing scores were significantly correlated with pain intensity (p < 0.001). Conclusion: This is the first comprehensive effort to generate a clinical-demographic profile of Hispanic/Latinx endometriosis patients. Differences in clinical presentation compared to other cohorts included higher prevalence and severity of dysmenorrhea and dyspareunia and high levels of pain catastrophizing. Though future studies are needed to dissect the impact of race and ethnicity on pain and impact, this profile is the first step to facilitate the recognition of risk factors and diagnostic features and promote improved clinical management of this patient population. The EPHect questionnaire is an efficient tool to capture data to allow comparisons across ethnicities and geographic regions and tackle disparities in endometriosis research.

Project description:IntroductionImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized cancer therapeutics. However, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) increase morbidity and mortality and thereby limit therapeutic utility. The real-world incidence of the entire spectrum of pulmonary irAEs has not been systematically described. The objective of this study is to assess the risk of developing pulmonary irAEs (pneumonitis, pleural events [i.e., effusion and pleurisy], exacerbations of airway disease [i.e., bronchitis and bronchiectasis], and sarcoidosis) with exposure to five commonly used ICIs: nivolumab, pembrolizumab, durvalumab, avelumab, and atezolizumab.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) pharmacovigilance database. We collected data from 2012 to 2021 to assess the risk of pulmonary irAEs and performed a disproportionality analysis using Open-Vigil, a software package used for analysis of pharmacovigilance data, to calculate reporting odds ratios (RORs). We used 95% CIs to evaluate the precision of RORs. An ROR greater than 1 and the upper limit of the 95% CI indicated statistical significance.ResultsA total of 17,273,403 events were reported in FAERS between 2012 and 2021. Of these, 88,099 (0.5%) were attributed to the PD-1 (programmed cell death protein 1) inhibitors and 21,905 (0.1%) to PD-L1 (programmed death ligand 1) inhibitors of interest. The most common indication for using the ICIs of interest was lung cancer: a total of 2832 (46.70%) for the PD-1 inhibitors and 1311 (70.9%) for the PD-L1 inhibitors. In the anti-PD-1 group, 2342 (38.6%) patients were hospitalized, and 1962 (32.4%) patients died from the lung adverse event. In the PD-L1 group, 744 (40.3%) patients were hospitalized, and 520 (28.1%) patients died from the event. Nivolumab resulted in the highest statistically significant risk (ROR, 10.5; 95% CI, 10.1-10.9) for pneumonitis. Avelumab had a lesser risk for pneumonitis (ROR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.2-0.3). The risk for pleural events was highest with nivolumab (ROR, 3.6; 95% CI, 3.4-3.9), followed by pembrolizumab (ROR, 1.8; 95% CI; 1.6-2.0) (p < 0.001), with the lowest risks from durvalumab, atezolizumab, and avelumab. For ICI-related sarcoidosis, the risk was most significant with pembrolizumab (ROR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.8-4.7), followed by nivolumab (ROR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.9-3.5) (p < 0.001). The RORs for all five ICIs were less than 1 for exacerbations of airway diseases as compared with other drugs.ConclusionUsing a pharmacovigilance database, we found an increased risk of multiple pulmonary irAEs after ICI therapy, particularly with PD-1 inhibitors. Further work is needed to investigate the incidence of pulmonary irAEs other than pneumonitis.

Dataset Information

Comparison of two methods to estimate adverse events in the IBEAS Study (Ibero-American study of adverse events): cross-sectional versus retrospective cohort design.

Publications

Comparison of two methods to estimate adverse events in the IBEAS Study (Ibero-American study of adverse events): cross-sectional versus retrospective cohort design.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets