ReviewPharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2020
Pharmacologically pertinent period of effect (PPPE).
Review in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pharmacologically pertinent period of effect (PPPE).Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe period of time during which a patient is exposed to a drug does not necessarily correspond to the period during which the drug produces the adverse effect under consideration. We propose the term Pharmacologically pertinent period of effect (PPPE) to address this time window. We explored the PPPE in light of the rofecoxib saga.
methodsWe identified the observational database studies of rofecoxib at doses 25 and 50 mg daily and thromboembolic events. We also obtained the Kaplan-Meier curves of Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research trial (VIGOR) and Adenomatous Polyp Prevention on Vioxx (APPROVE) trials.
resultsWe found seven observational studies with nine analyses. All the studies only looked at current exposure. At the dose of 25 mg, only three of nine analyses were barely statistically significant. At the dose of 50 mg, the risk ratios were much higher. The visual inspection of the Kaplan-Meier curves shows that in the APPROVE trial (25 mg), the placebo and rofecoxib curves start separating to become statistically significantly different only after 36 months. In contrast the VIGOR (50 mg), curves start separating very early and the divergence increases after 8 months. DISCUSSION: The 50 mg observational studies, looking at current exposure, correctively identified the almost immediate increase in risk evident in the VIGOR Kaplan-Meier curves. The absence of an immediate increase in risk shown by the APPROVE trial was also correctively identified by most observational 25 mg studies. To our knowledge no observational study was done on the long-term cardiac toxicity of the 25-mg dose. It would thus appear that the two doses of rofecoxib have different PPPEs.
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.