Dataset Information

Channeling Bias in the Analysis of Risk of Myocardial Infarction, Stroke, Gastrointestinal Bleeding, and Acute Renal Failure with the Use of Paracetamol Compared with Ibuprofen.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Observational studies estimating severe outcomes for paracetamol versus ibuprofen use have acknowledged the specific challenge of channeling bias. A previous study relying on negative controls suggested that using large-scale propensity score (LSPS) matching may mitigate bias better than models using limited lists of covariates.

Objective

The aim was to assess whether using LSPS matching would enable the evaluation of paracetamol, compared to ibuprofen, and increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, or acute renal failure.

Study design and setting

In a new-user cohort study, we used two propensity score model strategies for confounder controls. One replicated the approach of controlling for a hand-picked list. The second used LSPSs based on all available covariates for matching. Positive and negative controls assessed residual confounding and calibrated confidence intervals. The data source was the Clinical Practices Research Datalink (CPRD).

Results

A substantial proportion of negative controls were statistically significant after propensity score matching on the publication covariates, indicating considerable systematic error. LSPS adjustment was less biased, but residual error remained. The calibrated estimates resulted in very wide confidence intervals, indicating large uncertainty in effect estimates once residual error was incorporated.

Conclusions

For paracetamol versus ibuprofen, when using LSPS methods in the CPRD, it is only possible to distinguish true effects if those effects are large (hazard ratio > 2). Due to their smaller hazard ratios, the outcomes under study cannot be differentiated from null effects (represented by negative controls) even if there were a true effect. Based on these data, we conclude that we are unable to determine whether paracetamol is associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, GI bleeding, and acute renal failure compared to ibuprofen, due to residual confounding.

SUBMITTER: Weinstein RB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7434801 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOver-the-counter analgesics such as paracetamol and ibuprofen are among the most widely used, and having a good understanding of their safety profile is important to public health. Prior observational studies estimating the risks associated with paracetamol use acknowledge the inherent limitations of these studies. One threat to the validity of observational studies is channeling bias, i.e. the notion that patients are systematically exposed to one drug or the other, based on current and past comorbidities, in a manner that affects estimated relative risk.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine whether evidence of channeling bias exists in observational studies that compare paracetamol with ibuprofen, and, if so, the extent to which confounding adjustment can mitigate this bias.Study design and settingIn a cohort of 140,770 patients, we examined whether those who received any paracetamol (including concomitant users) were more likely to have prior diagnoses of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or renal disease than those who received ibuprofen alone. We compared propensity score distributions between drugs, and examined the degree to which channeling bias could be controlled using a combination of negative control disease outcome models and large-scale propensity score matching. Analyses were conducted using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.ResultsThe proportions of prior MI, GI bleeding, renal disease, and stroke were significantly higher in those prescribed any paracetamol versus ibuprofen alone, after adjusting for sex and age. We were not able to adequately remove selection bias using a selected set of covariates for propensity score adjustment; however, when we fit the propensity score model using a substantially larger number of covariates, evidence of residual bias was attenuated.ConclusionsAlthough using selected covariates for propensity score adjustment may not sufficiently reduce bias, large-scale propensity score matching offers a novel approach to consider to mitigate the effects of channeling bias.

Project description:BackgroundThere are limited data on the safety of colonoscopy in patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). We examined the various adverse events associated with colonoscopy in acute LGIB compared with non-GIB patients.MethodsEmergency hospitalized LGIB patients (n = 161) and age- and gender-matched non-GIB controls (n = 161) were selected. Primary outcomes were any adverse events during preparation and colonoscopy procedure. Secondary outcomes were five bowel preparation-related adverse events--hypotension, systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg, volume overload, vomiting, aspiration pneumonia and loss of consciousness--and four colonoscopy-related adverse events--including hypotension, perforation, cerebrocardiovascular events and sepsis.ResultsDuring bowel preparation, 16 (9%) LGIB patients experienced an adverse event. None of the LGIB patients experienced volume overload, aspiration pneumonia or loss of consciousness; however, 12 (7%) had hypotension and 4 (2%) vomited. There were no significant differences in the five bowel preparation-related adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. During colonoscopy, 25 (15%) LGIB patients experienced an adverse event. None LGIB patient had perforation or sepsis; however, 23 (14%) had hypotension and 2 (1%) experienced a cerebrocardiovascular event. There was no significant difference in the four colonoscopy-related adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. In addition, no significant difference in any of the nine adverse events was found among subgroups: patients aged ≥65 years, those with comorbidities, and those with antithrombotic drug use.ConclusionsAdverse events in bowel preparation and colonoscopy among acute LGIB patients were low. No significant difference was found in adverse events between LGIB and non-GIB patients. These adverse events were also low in elderly LGIB patients, as well as in those with co-morbidities and antithrombotic drug use, suggesting that colonoscopy performed during acute LGIB did not increase adverse events.

Project description:BackgroundGastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common and often serious complication after stroke. Although several risk factors for post-stroke GIB have been identified, no reliable or validated scoring system is currently available to predict GIB after acute stroke in routine clinical practice or clinical trials. In the present study, we aimed to develop and validate a risk model (acute ischemic stroke associated gastrointestinal bleeding score, the AIS-GIB score) to predict in-hospital GIB after acute ischemic stroke.MethodsThe AIS-GIB score was developed from data in the China National Stroke Registry (CNSR). Eligible patients in the CNSR were randomly divided into derivation (60%) and internal validation (40%) cohorts. External validation was performed using data from the prospective Chinese Intracranial Atherosclerosis Study (CICAS). Independent predictors of in-hospital GIB were obtained using multivariable logistic regression in the derivation cohort, and ?-coefficients were used to generate point scoring system for the AIS-GIB. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test were used to assess model discrimination and calibration, respectively.ResultsA total of 8,820, 5,882, and 2,938 patients were enrolled in the derivation, internal validation and external validation cohorts. The overall in-hospital GIB after AIS was 2.6%, 2.3%, and 1.5% in the derivation, internal, and external validation cohort, respectively. An 18-point AIS-GIB score was developed from the set of independent predictors of GIB including age, gender, history of hypertension, hepatic cirrhosis, peptic ulcer or previous GIB, pre-stroke dependence, admission National Institutes of Health stroke scale score, Glasgow Coma Scale score and stroke subtype (Oxfordshire). The AIS-GIB score showed good discrimination in the derivation (0.79; 95% CI, 0.764-0.825), internal (0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.82) and external (0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.82) validation cohorts. The AIS-GIB score was well calibrated in the derivation (P = 0.42), internal (P = 0.45) and external (P = 0.86) validation cohorts.ConclusionThe AIS-GIB score is a valid clinical grading scale to predict in-hospital GIB after AIS. Further studies on the effect of the AIS-GIB score on reducing GIB and improving outcome after AIS are warranted.