IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0205640.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cardiovascular risk profile in individuals initiating treatment for overactive bladder – Challenges and learnings for comparative analysis using linked claims and electronic medical record databases

Author

Listed:
  • E Vonesh
  • K L Gooch
  • V Khangulov
  • C R Schermer
  • K M Johnston
  • S M Szabo
  • J S Rumsfeld

Abstract

For managing overactive bladder (OAB), mirabegron, a β3 adrenergic receptor agonist, is typically used as second-line pharmacotherapy after antimuscarinics. Therefore, patients initiating treatment with mirabegron and antimuscarinics may differ, potentially impacting associated clinical outcomes. When using observational data to evaluate real-world safety and effectiveness of OAB treatments, residual bias due to unmeasured confounding and/or confounding by indication are important considerations. Falsification analysis, in which clinically irrelevant endpoints are tested as a reference, can be used to assess residual bias. The objective in this study was to compare baseline cardiovascular risk among OAB patients by treatment, and assess the presence of residual bias via falsification analysis of OAB patients treated with mirabegron or antimuscarinics, to determine whether clinically relevant comparisons across groups would be feasible. Linked electronic health record and claims data (Optum/Humedica) for OAB patients in the United States from 2011–2015 were available, with index defined as first date of OAB treatment during this period. Unadjusted characteristics were compared across groups at index and propensity-matching conducted. Falsification endpoints (hepatitis C, shingles, community-acquired pneumonia) were compared between groups using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The study identified 10,311 antimuscarinic- and 408 mirabegron-treated patients. Mirabegron patients were predominantly older males, with more comorbidities. The analytic sample included 1,188 antimuscarinic patients propensity-matched to 396 mirabegron patients; after matching, no significant baseline differences remained. Estimates of falsification ORs were 0.7 (CI:0.3–1.7) for shingles, 1.5 (CI:0.3–8.2) for hepatitis C, 0.8 (CI:0.4–1.8) and 0.9 (CI:0.6–1.4) for pneumonia. While propensity matching successfully balanced observed covariates, wide CIs prevented definitive conclusions regarding residual bias. Accordingly, further observational comparisons by treatment group were not pursued. In real-world analysis, bias-detection methods could not confirm that differences in cardiovascular risk in patients receiving mirabegron versus antimuscarinics were fully adjusted for, precluding clinically relevant comparisons across treatment groups.

Suggested Citation

  • E Vonesh & K L Gooch & V Khangulov & C R Schermer & K M Johnston & S M Szabo & J S Rumsfeld, 2018. "Cardiovascular risk profile in individuals initiating treatment for overactive bladder – Challenges and learnings for comparative analysis using linked claims and electronic medical record databases," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-20, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0205640
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205640
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205640
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0205640&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0205640?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0205640. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.