ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2021
Drug-Drug Interaction Surveillance Study: Comparing Self-Controlled Designs in Five Empirical Examples in Real-World Data.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drug-Drug Interaction Signals for Major Bleeding in Nursing Home Residents: High-Throughput Screening of Clopidogrel and Oral Anticoagulants.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- An exploratory within-cohort paired comparison study of learner-centered and traditional teaching in medical endocrinology education.BMC research notes · 2026Article
- Skin thickness alterations in pressure injury tissue: insights from high-frequency ultrasound and mixed-design analysis of variance.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Nanomedicines Against Mitochondrial Dysfunction-Induced Metabolic Diseases.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Grace periods and exposure misclassification in self-controlled case-series studies of drug-drug interactions.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Drug-Drug Interactions in Pharmacoepidemiologic Research.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Review
- Thinking Three-Dimensionally: A Self- and Externally-Controlled Approach to Screening for Drug-Drug-Drug Interactions Among High-Risk Populations.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2024Article
- Proposing a framework to quantify the potential impact of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions caused by a new drug candidate by using real world data about the target patient population.Clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Bleeding events among patients concomitantly treated with direct oral anticoagulants and macrolide or fluoroquinolone antibiotics.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Self-controlled designs, specifically the case-crossover (CCO) and the self-controlled case series (SCCS), are increasingly utilized to generate real-world evidence (RWE) on drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Although these designs share the advantages and limitations of within-individual comparison, they also have design-specific assumptions. It is not known to what extent the differences in assumptions lead to different results in RWE DDI analyses. Using a nationwide US commercial healthcare insurance database (2006-2016), we compared the CCO and SCCS designs, as they are implemented in DDI studies, within five DDI-outcome examples: (1) simvastatin + clarithromycin and muscle-related toxicity; (2) atorvastatin + valsartan, and muscle-related toxicity; and (3-5) dabigatran + P-glycoprotein inhibitor (clarithromycin, amiodarone, and verapamil) and bleeding. Analyses were conducted within person-time exposed to the object drug (statins and dabigatran) and adjusted for bias associated with the inhibiting drugs via control groups of individuals unexposed to the object drug. The designs yielded similar estimates in most examples, with SCCS displaying better statistical efficiency. With both designs, results varied across sensitivity analyses, particularly in CCO analyses with small number of exposed individuals. Analyses in controls revealed substantial bias that may be differential across DDI-exposed and control individuals. Thus, both designs showed no association between amiodarone or verapamil and bleeding in dabigatran-exposed but revealed strong positive associations in controls. Overall, bias adjustment via a control group had a larger impact on results than the choice of a design, highlighting the importance and challenges of appropriate control group selection for adequate bias control in self-controlled analyses of DDIs.
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.