ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2016
A methodological comparison of two European primary care databases and replication in a US claims database: inhaled long-acting beta-2-agonists and the risk of acute myocardial infarction.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The challenges of replication: A worked example of methods reproducibility using electronic health record data.PloS one · 2025Article
- Association between Inhaled βInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2022Article
- Validated methods to identify patients with asthma-COPD overlap in healthcare databases: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeResults from observational studies on inhaled long-acting beta-2-agonists (LABA) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) risk are conflicting, presumably due to variation in methodology. We aimed to evaluate the impact of applying a common study protocol on consistency of results in three databases.
methodsIn the primary analysis, we included patients from two GP databases (Dutch-Mondriaan, UK-CPRD GOLD) with a diagnosis of asthma and/or COPD and at least one inhaled LABA or a "non-LABA inhaled bronchodilator medication" (short-acting beta-2-agonist or short-/long-acting muscarinic antagonist) prescription between 2002 and 2009. A claims database (USA-Clinformatics) was used for replication. LABA use was divided into current, recent (first 91 days following the end of a treatment episode), and past use (after more than 91 days following the end of a treatment episode). Adjusted hazard ratios (AMI-aHR) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) were estimated using time-dependent multivariable Cox regression models stratified by recorded diagnoses (asthma, COPD, or both asthma and COPD).
resultsFor asthma or COPD patients, no statistically significant AMI-aHRs (age- and sex-adjusted) were found in the primary analysis. For patients with both diagnoses, a decreased AMI-aHR was found for current vs. recent LABA use in the CPRD GOLD (0.78; 95 % CI 0.68-0.90) and in Mondriaan (0.55; 95 % CI 0.28-1.08), too. The replication study yielded similar results. Adjusting for concomitant medication use and comorbidities, in addition to age and sex, had little impact on the results.
conclusionsBy using a common protocol, we observed similar results in the primary analysis performed in two GP databases and in the replication study in a claims database. Regarding differences between databases, a common protocol facilitates interpreting results due to minimized methodological variations. However, results of multinational comparative observational studies might be affected by bias not fully addressed by a common protocol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.