Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33245789›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2021

Drug-Drug Interaction Surveillance Study: Comparing Self-Controlled Designs in Five Empirical Examples in Real-World Data.

Katsiaryna Bykov, Hu Li, Sangmi Kim, Seanna M Vine, Vincent Lo Re, Joshua J Gagne

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Nanomedicines Against Mitochondrial Dysfunction-Induced Metabolic Diseases.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Katsiaryna BykovDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Hu LiGlobal Patient Safety, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Sangmi KimGlobal Patient Safety, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Seanna M VineDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Vincent Lo ReDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine and Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training, Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Joshua J GagneDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

RESEARCH TRAINING IN PEDIATRIC EMERGENCY MEDICINET32HD040128 · NICHD · CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOSTON · PI Kenneth D. Mandl · 2001 to 2026
$5.0M
NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD040128
6 · The paper itself

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

Drug InteractionsAgedAtorvastatinClarithromycinDabigatranDatabases, FactualDrug EvaluationEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSimvastatinUnited StatesValsartanAtorvastatinClarithromycinDabigatranSimvastatinValsartan

Identifiers

PMID33245789
PMCPMC8058240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.