Instrumental variable analysis as a complementary analysis in studies of adverse effects: Venous thromboembolism and second-generation versus third-generation oral contraceptives

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 317-324

  Boef, Anna G C ^a   Souverein, Patrick C ^b   Vandenbroucke, Jan P ^a   van Hylckama Vlieg, Astrid ^a   de Boer, Anthonius ^b   le Cessie, Saskia ^a   Dekkers, Olaf M ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Adverse effects; Confounding; Instrumental variable; Pharmacoepidemiology

Indexed keywords

ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTRIBUTABLE RISK; BODY MASS; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HAZARD RATIO; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SMOKING; VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM; CHEMICALLY INDUCED; DRUG UTILIZATION REVIEW; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FACTUAL DATABASE; LEAST SQUARE ANALYSIS; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; VENOUS THROMBOSIS; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CONTRACEPTIVES, ORAL, COMBINED; CONTRACEPTIVES, ORAL, HORMONAL; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG PRESCRIPTIONS; DRUG UTILIZATION REVIEW; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEAST-SQUARES ANALYSIS; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; VENOUS THROMBOSIS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84959454108     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: 10991557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3956     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Greenland S, Neutra R. Control of confounding in the assessment of medical technology. Int J Epidemiol 1980; 9: 361-367.
2. Vandenbroucke JP. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet 2004; 363: 1728-1731.
3. Golder S, Loke YK, Bland M. Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview. PLoS Med 2011; 8: e1001026.
4. Papanikolaou PN, Christidi GD, Ioannidis JP. Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies. CMAJ 2006; 174: 635-641.
5. Feenstra H, Grobbee RE, in't Veld BA, Stricker BH. Confounding by contraindication in a nationwide cohort study of risk for death in patients taking ibopamine. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 569-572.
6. Miettinen OS. The need for randomization in the study of intended effects. Stat Med 1983; 2: 267-271.
7. Effect of different progestagens in low oestrogen oral contraceptives on venous thromboembolic disease. World Health Organization Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Disease and Steroid Hormone Contraception. Lancet 1995;346:1582-1588.
8. Bloemenkamp KW, Rosendaal FR, Helmerhorst FM, Buller HR, Vandenbroucke JP. Enhancement by factor V Leiden mutation of risk of deep-vein thrombosis associated with oral contraceptives containing a third-generation progestagen. Lancet 1995; 346: 1593-1596.
9. Jick H, Jick SS, Gurewich V, Myers MW, Vasilakis C. Risk of idiopathic cardiovascular death and nonfatal venous thromboembolism in women using oral contraceptives with differing progestagen components. Lancet 1995; 346: 1589-1593.
10. Vandenbroucke JP, Rosing J, Bloemenkamp KW, et al. Oral contraceptives and the risk of venous thrombosis. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1527-1535.
11. Kemmeren JM, Algra A, Grobbee DE. Third generation oral contraceptives and risk of venous thrombosis: meta-analysis. BMJ 2001; 323: 131-134.
12. Walker AM. Newer oral contraceptives and the risk of venous thromboembolism. Contraception 1998; 57: 169-181.
13. Farley TM, Meirik O, Collins J. Cardiovascular disease and combined oral contraceptives: reviewing the evidence and balancing the risks. Hum Reprod Update 1999; 5: 721-735.
14. Farmer RD, Lawrenson RA, Thompson CR, Kennedy JG, Hambleton IR. Population-based study of risk of venous thromboembolism associated with various oral contraceptives. Lancet 1997; 349: 83-88.
15. Small DS, Tan Z, Lorch SA, Brookhart MA. Instrumental variable estimation when compliance is not deterministic: the stochastic monotonicity assumption. 2014.
16. Swanson SA, Miller M, Robins JM, Hernan MA. Definition and evaluation of the monotonicity condition for preference-based instruments. Epidemiology 2015.
17. Hernan MA, Robins JM. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist's dream? Epidemiology 2006; 17: 360-372.
18. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Walter S, Vansteelandt S, Martinussen T. Glymour M. Instrumental Variable Estimation in a Survival Context: Epidemiology, 2015.
19. Jick H, Kaye JA, Vasilakis-Scaramozza C, Jick SS. Risk of venous thromboembolism among users of third generation oral contraceptives compared with users of oral contraceptives with levonorgestrel before and after 1995: cohort and case-control analysis. BMJ 2000; 321: 1190-1195.
20. Spitzer WO, Lewis MA, Heinemann LA, Thorogood M, MacRae KD. Third generation oral contraceptives and risk of venous thromboembolic disorders: an international case-control study. Transnational Research Group on Oral Contraceptives and the Health of Young Women. BMJ 1996; 312: 83-88.
21. Lidegaard O, Edstrom B, Kreiner S. Oral contraceptives and venous thromboembolism. A case-control study. Contraception 1998; 57: 291-301.
22. Herings RM, Urquhart J, Leufkens HG. Venous thromboembolism among new users of different oral contraceptives. Lancet 1999; 354: 127-128.
23. Hernan MA. The hazards of hazard ratios. Epidemiology 2010; 21: 13-15.
24. Ray WA. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 158: 915-920.
25. Danaei G, Tavakkoli M, Hernan MA. Bias in observational studies of prevalent users: lessons for comparative effectiveness research from a meta-analysis of statins. Am J Epidemiol 2012; 175: 250-262.