ArticleClinical epidemiology2026
Use of Negative Control Outcomes to Assess Cohort Comparability Among Evolocumab Initiators: A Real-World Database Study.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Real-world selection of lipid-lowering therapies (LLT) is often affected by patient prognosis, leading to residual bias in comparing treatment effects. We used negative control outcomes (NCOs) to assess the comparability in a traditional active comparator design (evolocumab vs other LLT initiators) and in a study design between patients treated and non-treated after evolocumab initiation. Methods: Using Tianjin Regional Healthcare Database, an electronic health records (EHR) database in China, we identified patients who initiated evolocumab and patients who initiated other LLT from 2018 to 2023. Within the evolocumab cohort, we further defined patients who filled the second prescription of evolocumab as "treated" and patients who did not as "non-treated" after evolocumab initiation. We evaluated residual confounding by calculating hazard ratios (HR) to compare the one-year risk of NCOs in the domains of frailty and health-seeking behavior in the two designs after applying inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results: 14,978 evolocumab initiators (5708 patients treated and 9270 patients non-treated), and 658,255 other LLT initiators were identified. Compared to other LLT initiators, evolocumab initiators showed a lower risk of fracture in domain of frailty (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56-1.00), and a higher risk of visual test in domain of health-seeking behavior (HR 2.41, 95% CI 1.31-4.47). Between patients treated and non-treated after evolocumab initiation, no association was identified in domain of frailty: fracture (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81-1.54) and incident cancers excluding nonmelanoma skin cancers (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81-1.28), whereas event numbers were insufficient for evaluating NCOs in the health-seeking behavior domain. Conclusion: Comparing evolocumab to other LLTs may result in biased estimates, while the treated and non-treated evolocumab initiators are more comparable in the measured confounding and the NCO domain of frailty. This study provides important insights for consideration when designing a comparative study in China.
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.