Observational studyPharmaceutical medicine2022
Potential Channeling Bias in the Evaluation of Cardiovascular Risk: The Importance of Comparator Selection in Observational Research.
Observational study in Pharmaceutical medicine, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComparator selection is an important consideration in the design of observational research studies that evaluate potential associations between drug therapies and adverse event risks. It can affect the validity of observational study results, and potentially impact data interpretation, regulatory decision making, and patient medication access.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the impact of comparator selection bias using two real-world case studies evaluating an increased rate of acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
methodsData from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan
resultsNo significant association between TRT and AMI was observed among TRT-treated (N = 198,528, mean age 52.4 ± 11.4 years) versus PDE5i-treated men (N = 198,528, mean age 52.3 ± 11.5 years) overall (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.01; 95% CI 0.95-1.07; p = 0.80). Among patients with prior cardiovascular disease (CVD), risk of AMI was significantly increased for TRT-treated versus PDE5i-treated patients (aHR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03-1.25). The triptan study included three comparisons (triptans [N = 436,642] vs prescription NSAIDs [N = 334,152], opiates [N = 55,234], and untreated migraine [N = 1,168,212]), and a positive control (untreated vs general non-migraine patients [N = 11,735,009]). Analyses of MI risk in migraine patients prescribed triptans versus NSAIDs/opiates had mixed results: the point estimate ranged from 0.33 to 0.84 depending on chosen study window.
conclusionsCardiovascular outcomes were not worse in hypogonadism patients with TRT versus PDE5i; however, a potential association with AMI was found in patients with prior CVD receiving TRT versus PDE5i. Findings pointed to a pseudo-protective effect of triptans versus untreated migraine patients or those potentially older and less healthy patients exposed to prescription NSAIDs or opiates. Triptan users should not be compared with those using other anti-migraine prescriptions when evaluating cardiovascular outcomes in migraine patients. Presence of high cardiovascular risks may contribute to channeling bias-healthier subjects being selected to receive treatment-highlighting the importance of choosing comparators wisely in observational studies.
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.