Medication as a risk factor for hospitalization due to heart failure and shock: a series of case-crossover studies in Swiss claims data

Jödicke, Annika M.; Burden, Andrea M.; Zellweger, Urs; Tomka, Ivan T.; Neuer, Thomas; Roos, Małgorzata; Kullak‐Ublick, Gerd A.; Curkovic, Ivanka; Egbring, Marco

doi:10.1007/s00228-020-02835-x

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(67 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 114 included articles, the case‐crossover design was the most common (100, 88%), 18–117 followed by the case‐time‐control (19, 17%), 38,63,67,71,86,118–131 and case‐case‐time‐control (4, 3%) 33,47,48,86 . (Table 1) The most common outcomes measured in these studies were hospitalization (43, 38%), cardiovascular events (22, 19%) and fall‐related injury/fracture (15, 13%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the use of methods to mitigate bias from non‐transient medications in the case‐crossover design: A systematic review

Huang

Tadrous

et al. 2023

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The case‐crossover design is a self‐controlled study design used to compare exposure immediately preceding an event occurrence with exposure in earlier control periods. The design is most suitable for transient exposures in order to avoid biases that can be problematic when using the case‐crossover design for non‐transient (i.e., chronic) exposures. Our goal was to conduct a systematic review of case‐crossover studies and its variants (case‐time‐control and case‐case‐time‐control) in order to compare design and analysis choices by medication type. Methods We conducted a systematic search to identify recent case‐crossover, case‐time‐control, and case‐case‐time‐control studies focused on medication exposures. Articles indexed in MEDLINE and EMBASE using these study designs that were published between January 2015 and December 2021 in the English language were identified. Reviews, methodological studies, commentaries, articles without medications as the exposure of interest, and articles with no available full text were excluded. Study characteristics including study design, outcome, risk window, control window, reporting of discordant pairs, and inclusion of sensitivity analyses were summarized overall and by medication type. We further evaluated the implementation of recommended methods to account for biases introduced by non‐transient exposures among articles that used the case‐crossover design on a non‐transient exposure. Results Of the 2036 articles initially identified, 114 articles were included. The case‐crossover was the most common study design (88%), followed by the case‐time‐control (17%), and case‐case‐time‐control (3%). Fifty‐three percent of the articles included only transient medications, 35% included only non‐transient medications, and 12% included both. Across years, the proportion of case‐crossover articles evaluating a non‐transient medication ranged from 30% in 2018 to 69% in 2017. We found that 41% of the articles that evaluated a non‐transient medication did not apply any of the recommended methods to account for biases and more than half of which were conducted by authors with no previous publication history of case‐crossover studies. Conclusion Using the case‐crossover design to evaluate a non‐transient medication remains common in pharmacoepidemiology. Researchers should apply appropriate design and analysis choices when opting to use a case‐crossover design with non‐transient medication exposures.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the use of methods to mitigate bias from non‐transient medications in the case‐crossover design: A systematic review

Huang

Tadrous

et al. 2023

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Selection problems as described here may not only occur in German claims data, but in all databases where individuals may not be represented over the whole life course or over a very long time period. This applies to health care systems where different insurance funds or different insurance systems are coexisting as is the case e.g., in Switzerland [31] or the USA [32,33], but also in registries where data do not cover the whole population or are censored. In the last decades the use of claims and registry data has increased leading to the increased importance of the topics discussed in this paper.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of different lookback periods on the sociodemographic structure of the study population and on the estimation of incidence rates: analyses with German claims data

Epping

Geyer

Tetzlaff

2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Defining incident cases has always been a challenging issue for researchers working with routine data. Lookback periods should enable researchers to identify and exclude recurrent cases and increase the accuracy of the incidence estimation. There are different recommendations for lookback periods depending on a disease entity of up to 10 years. Well-known drawbacks of the application of lookback periods are shorter remaining observation period in the dataset or smaller number of cases. The problem of selectivity of the remaining population after introducing lookback periods has not been considered in the literature until now. Methods The analyses were performed with pseudonymized claims data of a German statutory health insurance fund with annual case numbers of about 2,1 million insured persons. Proportions of study population excluded due to the application of lookback periods are shown according to age, occupational qualification and income. Myocardial infarction and stroke were used to demonstrate changes in incidence rates after applying lookback periods of up to 5 years. Results Younger individuals show substantial dropouts after the application of lookback periods. Furthermore, there are selectivities regarding occupational qualification and income, which cannot be handled by age standardization. Due to selective dropouts of younger individuals, crude incidence rates of myocardial infarction and stroke increase after applying lookback periods. Depending on the income group, age-standardized incidence rates changed differentially, leading to a decrease and possible underestimation of the social gradient after applying lookback periods. Conclusions Selectivity analyses regarding age and sociodemographic structure should be performed for the study population after applying lookback periods since the selectivity can affect the outcome especially in health care research. The selectivity effects might occur not only in claims data of one health insurance fund, but also in other longitudinal data with left- or right-censoring not covering the whole population. The effects may also apply to health care systems with a mix of public and private health insurance. A trade-off has to be considered between selectivity effects and eliminating recurrent events for more accuracy in the definition of incidence.

show abstract

“…In Appendix A we summarize the main/most used drugs and food supplements that can worsen the prognosis of heart failure patients; thus, it is recommended to avoid them by this category of patients [ 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 ,…”

Section: Drugs and Food Supplements That Can Aggravate Hfmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Up-to-Date Article Regarding Particularities of Drug Treatment in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure

Buda

Prelipcean

Cozma

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the prevalence of heart failure (HF) increases with age, HF is now one of the most common reasons for the hospitalization of elderly people. Although the treatment strategies and overall outcomes of HF patients have improved over time, hospitalization and mortality rates remain elevated, especially in developed countries where populations are aging. Therefore, this paper is intended to be a valuable multidisciplinary source of information for both doctors (cardiologists and general physicians) and pharmacists in order to decrease the morbidity and mortality of heart failure patients. We address several aspects regarding pharmacological treatment (including new approaches in HF treatment strategies [sacubitril/valsartan combination and sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors]), as well as the particularities of patients (age-induced changes and sex differences) and treatment (pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes in drugs; cardiorenal syndrome). The article also highlights several drugs and food supplements that may worsen the prognosis of HF patients and discusses some potential drug–drug interactions, their consequences and recommendations for health care providers, as well as the risks of adverse drug reactions and treatment discontinuation, as an interdisciplinary approach to treatment is essential for HF patients.

show abstract

Medication as a risk factor for hospitalization due to heart failure and shock: a series of case-crossover studies in Swiss claims data

Cited by 3 publications

References 35 publications

Evaluating the use of methods to mitigate bias from non‐transient medications in the case‐crossover design: A systematic review

Evaluating the use of methods to mitigate bias from non‐transient medications in the case‐crossover design: A systematic review

The effects of different lookback periods on the sociodemographic structure of the study population and on the estimation of incidence rates: analyses with German claims data

An Up-to-Date Article Regarding Particularities of Drug Treatment in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About