Las fuentes de datos en farmacoepidemiología como generadoras de sesgos y heterogeneidad en metanálisis

En este trabajo se revisa la literatura científica de las dos últimas décadas cuyo propósito fuese poner de manifiesto la existencia de algún tipo de sesgo en estudios clínicos observacionales con fuentes de datos secundarias, y se proponen estrategias para la mitigación de dichos sesgos. A continuación se discuten metodológicamente las diferentes técnicas de metanálisis disponibles para resumir la evidencia sobre seguridad de medicamentos, y se ilustra, mediante varios ejemplos, cómo difieren las conclusiones a partir de un mismo metanálisis cuando se considera el tipo de fuente de datos, primaria o secundaria, como una variable en el análisis de heterogeneidad. Por último, se evalúa el grado en que el origen de los datos se explora como una fuente de heterogeneidad en metanálisis de estudios observacionales publicados en las principales revistas médicas

Steroid-Resistant Graves’ Orbitopathy Treated with Tocilizumab in Real-World Clinical Practice: A 9-Year Single-Center Experience

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of tocilizumab use for the treatment of active steroid-resistant Graves’ orbitopathy (GO). A retrospective longitudinal study was conducted by reviewing the medical records at a single center between November 2009 and December 2018. A total of 114 patients with steroid-resistant Graves’ orbitopathy were examined and treated with tocilizumab, of which 54 adults met the inclusion criteria. No concomitant medication for the treatment of orbitopathy was used. The main primary outcomes included changes from baseline in the Clinical Activity Score (CAS) and thyrotropin receptor antibody (TRAb) levels throughout therapy with tocilizumab. The absolute responses to treatment were defined as the achievement of CAS ≤ 1 and TRAb ≤ 10 U/L. A composite ophthalmic score including CAS, proptosis, eyelid retraction, and diplopia was used to evaluate individual improvement in GO. Adverse drug reactions were also assessed. Analysis of the patient’s CAS and TRAb levels showed meaningful reductions during tocilizumab treatment. Differences between values at baseline and subsequent time points were statistically significant (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The absolute CAS response (CAS = 0 or 1) was achieved in 74% (37/50) of patients after the fourth dose of tocilizumab (at week 16), with a TRAb response being achieved in 55% (23/42) of patients. The relative CAS response (reduction ≥ 2 points) was achieved in 90.9% of patients (40/44) after the first dose of tocilizumab (at week 4). Measurements of proptosis (reduction ≥ 2 mm in 78% of patients, 42/54) and eyelid retraction (reduction ≥ 2 mm in 75%, 33/44), and the prevalence of diplopia (improvement in 68%, 19/28) were significantly reduced after the last dose of tocilizumab (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). GO improved in 98% (53/54) of patients when at least two criteria of the composite evaluation were required. Four patients exhibited disease recurrence, defined as an increase in CAS of ≥2 points in the six months following the date of inactivation. Most adverse drug reactions were mild or moderate in severity. In conclusion, our data suggest that a course of at least 4 months (one monthly dose) of tocilizumab therapy provides a significant benefit to patients with active moderate-to-severe steroid-resistant GO

Bias in pharmacoepidemiologic studies using secondary health care databases: a scoping review

BACKGROUND: The availability of clinical and therapeutic data drawn from medical records and administrative databases has entailed new opportunities for clinical and epidemiologic research. However, these databases present inherent limitations which may render them prone to new biases. We aimed to conduct a structured review of biases specific to observational clinical studies based on secondary databases, and to propose strategies for the mitigation of those biases. METHODS: Scoping review of the scientific literature published during the period 2000-2018 through an automated search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science, supplemented with manually cross-checking of reference lists. We included opinion essays, methodological reviews, analyses or simulation studies, as well as letters to the editor or retractions, the principal objective of which was to highlight the existence of some type of bias in pharmacoepidemiologic studies using secondary databases. RESULTS: A total of 117 articles were included. An increasing trend in the number of publications concerning the potential limitations of secondary databases was observed over time and across medical research disciplines. Confounding was the most reported category of bias (63.2% of articles), followed by selection and measurement biases (47.0% and 46.2% respectively). Confounding by indication (32.5%), unmeasured/residual confounding (28.2%), outcome misclassification (28.2%) and "immortal time" bias (25.6%) were the subcategories most frequently mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal use of secondary databases in pharmacoepidemiologic studies has introduced biases in the studies, which may have led to erroneous conclusions. Methods to mitigate biases are available and must be considered in the design, analysis and interpretation phases of studies using these data sources