The case-crossover study design in pharmacoepidemiology

Abstract

In the study of the association of transient drug exposures with acute outcomes, the case-crossover design is an efficient alternative to the case-control approach. This design based exclusively on the case series uses within-subject comparisons of drug exposures over time to estimate the rate ratio of the outcome associated with the drug under study. This design inherently removes the biasing effects of unmeasured, time-invariant confounding factors from the estimated rate ratio, but is sensitive to several assumptions. We illustrated the case-crossover design and explored its sensitivity using data from 4028 cases of gastrointestinal bleeding from the General Practice Research Database in assessing the effects of the drug warfarin. We compared the use of different time window lengths to assess exposure and considered the use of a case-time-control design to account for exposure time trends. The case-crossover approach found no excess risk of bleeding with warfarin exposure [rate ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-1.28] using a 1-month time window. When we restricted the analysis to subjects with truly transient drug exposure, defined by 1 to 3 prescriptions in the previous year, the rate ratio was 2.59 (95% CI: 1.42-4.74). To consider the longer 1-year exposure time window, the case-time-control approach was used and resulted in a rate ratio of 1.72 (95% CI: 1.08-2.43). In conclusion, the case-crossover design is potentially a powerful approach to assess the risk of drugs. This design is, however, highly sensitive to assumptions about intermittency of drug use and the length of the exposure time window, as demonstrated with the example of bleeding associated with warfarin use.

Revising the link between proton-pump inhibitors and risk of acute myocardial infarction—a case-crossover analysis

“…The results of a case-crossover analysis are known to depend on the length of the hazard period [19]. Our results from a sensitivity analysis with different lengths of the hazard/control period didn"t show an increase in risk of AMI if using PPI in a hazard period of 1 or 2 days, while the estimates for the length of period 4 and 5 days were similar to those from our primary analysis (data not shown).…”

“…We applied a case-crossover design in order to assess if prescription or dispensation of PPIs was more frequent during the 3 day period directly preceding the day of the AMI hospitalization (i.e., the hazard period) than in the average of 30 three day periods preceding the hazard period (i.e., the control periods) ( Figure 1) [19][20][21].…”

Risk of a Thrombotic Event after the 6-Week Postpartum Period

“…Our study fully meets the assumptions of these crossover designs, in that we modeled a transient, discrete exposure with stable prevalence over time and an outcome that was defined by an acute event. 30 …”

Impact of Hemodialysis Catheter Dysfunction on Dialysis and Other Medical Services: An Observational Cohort Study

“…We used two different approaches to analyze associations between catheter dysfunction sessions and economic outcomes: case-crossover [15] and multivariate-repeated measures analysis. In the case-crossover analyses (Figure 2), we included only patients who had the event of interest (e.g., missed dialysis session due to access problem).…”