Dataset Information

Methodological evaluation of bias in observational coronavirus disease 2019 studies on drug effectiveness.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objective

Observational studies may provide valuable evidence on real-world causal effects of drug effectiveness in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As patients are usually observed from hospital admission to discharge and drug initiation starts during hospitalization, advanced statistical methods are needed to account for time-dependent drug exposure, confounding and competing events. Our objective is to evaluate the observational studies on the three common methodological pitfalls in time-to-event analyses: immortal time bias, confounding bias and competing risk bias.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search on 23 October 2020, in the PubMed database to identify observational cohort studies that evaluated drug effectiveness in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We included articles published in four journals: British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet as well as their sub-journals.

Results

Overall, out of 255 articles screened, 11 observational cohort studies on treatment effectiveness with drug exposure-outcome associations were evaluated. All studies were susceptible to one or more types of bias in the primary study analysis. Eight studies had a time-dependent treatment. However, the hazard ratios were not adjusted for immortal time in the primary analysis. Even though confounders presented at baseline have been addressed in nine studies, time-varying confounding caused by time-varying treatment exposure and clinical variables was less recognized. Only one out of 11 studies addressed competing event bias by extending follow-up beyond patient discharge.

Conclusions

In the observational cohort studies on drug effectiveness for treatment of COVID-19 published in four high-impact journals, the methodological biases were concerningly common. Appropriate statistical tools are essential to avoid misleading conclusions and to obtain a better understanding of potential treatment effects.

SUBMITTER: Martinuka O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8015394 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThis study aims to discuss and assess the impact of three prevalent methodological biases: competing risks, immortal-time bias, and confounding bias in real-world observational studies evaluating treatment effectiveness. We use a demonstrative observational data example of COVID-19 patients to assess the impact of these biases and propose potential solutions.MethodsWe describe competing risks, immortal-time bias, and time-fixed confounding bias by evaluating treatment effectiveness in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. For our demonstrative analysis, we use observational data from the registry of patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to the Bellvitge University Hospital in Spain from March 2020 to February 2021 and met our predefined inclusion criteria. We compare estimates of a single-dose, time-dependent treatment with the standard of care. We analyze the treatment effectiveness using common statistical approaches, either by ignoring or only partially accounting for the methodological biases. To address these challenges, we emulate a target trial through the clone-censor-weight approach.ResultsOverlooking competing risk bias and employing the naïve Kaplan-Meier estimator led to increased in-hospital death probabilities in patients with COVID-19. Specifically, in the treatment effectiveness analysis, the Kaplan-Meier estimator resulted in an in-hospital mortality of 45.6% for treated patients and 59.0% for untreated patients. In contrast, employing an emulated trial framework with the weighted Aalen-Johansen estimator, we observed that in-hospital death probabilities were reduced to 27.9% in the "X"-treated arm and 40.1% in the non-"X"-treated arm. Immortal-time bias led to an underestimated hazard ratio of treatment.ConclusionOverlooking competing risks, immortal-time bias, and confounding bias leads to shifted estimates of treatment effects. Applying the naïve Kaplan-Meier method resulted in the most biased results and overestimated probabilities for the primary outcome in analyses of hospital data from COVID-19 patients. This overestimation could mislead clinical decision-making. Both immortal-time bias and confounding bias must be addressed in assessments of treatment effectiveness. The trial emulation framework offers a potential solution to address all three methodological biases.

Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. Although it is known that the COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with higher incidence of pulmonary barotrauma, unique mechanisms causing the aforementioned complication are still to be investigated. The goal of this research was to investigate the incidence of barotrauma among COVID-19 patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) and to examine different clinical outcomes among those subjects. This retrospective observational cohort study included adult COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU from September 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022. All admitted subjects received invasive respiratory support. Subjects were divided into two groups based on occurrence of pulmonary barotrauma. Data were collected from available electronical medical records. In the study period, a total of 900 subjects met inclusion criteria. Pulmonary barotrauma occurred in 88 (9.8%) of them. Subcutaneous emphysema developed in 73 (83%), pneumomediastinum in 68 (77.3%) and pneumothorax in 54 (61.4%) subjects. A small group of subjects developed less common complications like pneumoperitoneum (8 subjects, 9.1%) and pneumopericardium (2 subjects, 2.3%). Survival rate was higher in control than in barotrauma group [396 (48.8%) vs. 22 (25.0%), P<0.05]. There was also a significant difference between two groups in PaO2/FiO2 ratio on admission, duration of non-invasive respiratory support before mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation and duration of ICU and hospital stay, all in favour of control group. Development of barotrauma in patients with severe forms of COVID-19 disease and in need of respiratory support is associated with longer ICU and hospital stay as well as lower survival rates at hospital discharge. Further efforts are needed in understanding mechanism in developing barotrauma and finding new prevention and treatment options.

Project description:SubjectsEarly detection of coronavirus disease 2019 in patients likely to develop severe manifestations enables appropriate interventions, including rapid ICU admission. This study was conducted to determine whether noninvasive urine biomarkers can predict the clinical severity of coronavirus disease 2019.InterventionsNot applicable.Measurements and main resultsThis is single-center study, national center hospital designated for infectious disease. Fifty-eight patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in respiratory specimens through real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction were retrospectively studied. Urinary β2-microglobulin, liver-type fatty acid-binding protein were serially measured. Serum interferon-γ and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 were also evaluated. The 58 patients were assigned into three groups. Patients requiring intensive care were assigned to the severe group (n = 12). Patients treated with oxygen were assigned to the moderate group (n = 13). Other patients were assigned to the mild group (n = 33). Urine tests revealed that low β2-microglobulin and liver-type fatty acid-binding protein levels were associated with mild disease, whereas high levels were associated with severe disease. In severe cases, liver-type fatty acid-binding protein tended to be persistently high. The resulting cutoff values were β2-microglobulin; severe versus moderate + mild: 2,457 μg/dL (specificity 76.9% and sensitivity 90.0%, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 85.9%), liver-type fatty acid-binding protein; severe versus moderate + mild: 22.0 μg/gCre (specificity 84.6% and sensitivity 90%, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 91.8%). Urinary β2-microglobulin and serum interferon-γ/monocyte chemotactic protein-1 showed a similar trend.ConclusionsEvaluating urinary biomarkers such as β2-microglobulin and liver-type fatty acid-binding protein may allow determination of coronavirus disease 2019 patients with active cytokines and recognition of patients likely to become critically ill and requiring careful observation and early intervention.