IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0218062.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Confounding by indication of the safety of de-escalation in community-acquired pneumonia: A simulation study embedded in a prospective cohort

Author

Listed:
  • Inger van Heijl
  • Valentijn A Schweitzer
  • C H Edwin Boel
  • Jan Jelrik Oosterheert
  • Susanne M Huijts
  • Wendelien Dorigo-Zetsma
  • Paul D van der Linden
  • Marc J M Bonten
  • Cornelis H van Werkhoven

Abstract

Observational studies have demonstrated that de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy is independently associated with lower mortality. This most probably results from confounding by indication. Reaching clinical stability is associated with the decision to de-escalate and with survival. However, studies rarely adjust for this confounder. We quantified the potential confounding effect of clinical stability on the estimated impact of de-escalation on mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Data were used from the Community-Acquired Pneumonia immunization Trial in Adults (CAPiTA). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. We performed Cox proportional-hazards regression with de-escalation as time-dependent variable and adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores. The potential impact of unmeasured confounding was quantified through simulating a variable representing clinical stability on day three, using data on prevalence and associations with mortality from the literature. Of 1,536 included patients, 257 (16.7%) were de-escalated, 123 (8.0%) were escalated and in 1156 (75.3%) the antibiotic spectrum remained unchanged. Crude 30-day mortality was 3.5% (9/257) and 10.9% (107/986) in the de-escalation and continuation groups, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio of de-escalation for 30-day mortality (compared to patients with unchanged coverage), without adjustment for clinical stability, was 0.39 (95%CI: 0.19–0.79). If 90% to 100% of de-escalated patients were clinically stable on day three, the fully adjusted hazard ratio would be 0.56 (95%CI: 0.27–1.12) to 1.04 (95%CI: 0.49–2.23), respectively. The simulated confounder was substantially stronger than any of the baseline confounders in our dataset. Quantification of effects of de-escalation on patient outcomes without proper adjustment for clinical stability results in strong negative bias. This study suggests the effect of de-escalation on mortality needs further well-designed prospective research to determine effect size more accurately.

Suggested Citation

  • Inger van Heijl & Valentijn A Schweitzer & C H Edwin Boel & Jan Jelrik Oosterheert & Susanne M Huijts & Wendelien Dorigo-Zetsma & Paul D van der Linden & Marc J M Bonten & Cornelis H van Werkhoven, 2019. "Confounding by indication of the safety of de-escalation in community-acquired pneumonia: A simulation study embedded in a prospective cohort," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-14, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0218062
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0218062
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0218062&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0218062?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:pone00:0218062. 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.