Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Journal of Epidemiology 6/2012

Open Access 01-06-2012 | PHARMACO-EPIDEMIOLOGY

A comparison of pharmacoepidemiological study designs in medication use and traffic safety research

Authors: Silvia Ravera, Nienke van Rein, Johan J. de Gier, Lolkje T. W. de Jong-van den Berg

Published in: European Journal of Epidemiology | Issue 6/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

In order to explore how the choice of different study designs could influence the risk estimates, a case–crossover and case–time–control study were carried out and their outcomes were compared with those of a traditional case–control study design that evaluated the association between the exposure to psychotropic medications and the risk of having a motor vehicle accident (MVA). A record-linkage database availing data for 3,786 cases and 18,089 controls during the period 2000–2007 was used. The study designs (i.e., case–crossover and case–time–control) were derived from published literature, and the following psychotropic medicines were examined: antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics and sedatives, and antidepressants, stratified in the two groups selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and other antidepressants. Moreover, in order to further investigate the effects of frequency of psychoactive medication exposure on the outcomes of the case–crossover analysis, the data were also stratified by the number of defined daily doses (DDDs) and days of medication use in the 12 months before the motor vehicle accident. Three-thousand seven-hundred fifty-two cases were included in this second part of the case–crossover analysis. The case–crossover design did not show any statistically significant association between psychotropic medication exposure and MVA risk [e.g., SSRIs—Adj. OR = 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.69–1.46); Anxiolytics—Adj. OR = 0.95 (95 % CI: 0.68–1.31)]. The case–time–control design only showed a borderline statistically significant increased traffic accident risk in SSRI users [Adj. OR = 1.16 (95 % CI: 1.01–1.34)]. With respect to the stratifications by the number of DDDs and days of medication use, the analyses showed no increased traffic accident risk associated with the exposure to the selected medication groups [e.g., SSRIs, <20 DDDs—Adj. OR = 0.65 (95 % CI: 0.11–3.87); SSRIs, 16–150 days—Adj. OR = 0.55 (95 % CI: 0.24–1.24)]. In contrast to the above-mentioned results, our recent case–control study found a statistically significant association between traffic accident risk and exposure to anxiolytics [Adj. OR = 1.54 (95 % CI: 1.11–2.15)], and SSRIs [Adj. OR = 2.03 (95 % CI: 1.31–3.14)]. Case–crossover and case–time–control analyses produced different results than those of our recent case–control study (i.e., case–crossover and case–time–control analyses did not show any statistically significant association whereas the case–control analysis showed an increased traffic accident risk in anxiolytic and SSRI users). These divergent results can probably be explained by the differences in the study designs. Given that the case–crossover design is only appropriate for short-term exposures and the case–time–control design is an elaboration of this latter, it can be concluded that, probably, these two approaches are not the most suitable ones to investigate the relation between MVA risk and psychotropic medications, which, on the contrary, are often use chronically.
Literature
1.
go back to reference de Gier JJ, Alvarez FJ, Mercier-Guyon C, Verstraete AG. Prescribing and dispensing guidelines for medicinal drugs affecting driving performance. In: Verster JC, Pandi-Perumal SR, Ramaekers JG, de Gier JJ, editors. Drugs, Driving and Traffic Safety. Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkaeuser Verlag AG; 2009. p. 121–34.CrossRef de Gier JJ, Alvarez FJ, Mercier-Guyon C, Verstraete AG. Prescribing and dispensing guidelines for medicinal drugs affecting driving performance. In: Verster JC, Pandi-Perumal SR, Ramaekers JG, de Gier JJ, editors. Drugs, Driving and Traffic Safety. Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkaeuser Verlag AG; 2009. p. 121–34.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Drummer OH. The role of drugs in road safety. Australian Prescriber. 2008;31:33–5. Drummer OH. The role of drugs in road safety. Australian Prescriber. 2008;31:33–5.
3.
go back to reference Orriols L, Salmi LR, Philip P, Moore N, Delorme B, Castot A, et al. The impact of medicinal drugs on traffic safety: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009;18:647–58.PubMedCrossRef Orriols L, Salmi LR, Philip P, Moore N, Delorme B, Castot A, et al. The impact of medicinal drugs on traffic safety: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009;18:647–58.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Walsh JM, de Gier JJ, Christopherson AS, Verstraete AG. Drugs and driving. Traffic Inj Prev. 2004;5:241–53.PubMedCrossRef Walsh JM, de Gier JJ, Christopherson AS, Verstraete AG. Drugs and driving. Traffic Inj Prev. 2004;5:241–53.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hemmelgarn B, Suissa S, Huang A, Boivin JF, Pinard G. Benzodiazepine use and the risk of motor vehicle crash in the elderly. JAMA. 1997;278:27–31.PubMedCrossRef Hemmelgarn B, Suissa S, Huang A, Boivin JF, Pinard G. Benzodiazepine use and the risk of motor vehicle crash in the elderly. JAMA. 1997;278:27–31.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Barbone F, McMahon AD, Davey PG, Morris AD, Reid IC, McDevitt DG, et al. Association of road-traffic accidents with benzodiazepine use. Lancet. 1998;352:1331–6.PubMedCrossRef Barbone F, McMahon AD, Davey PG, Morris AD, Reid IC, McDevitt DG, et al. Association of road-traffic accidents with benzodiazepine use. Lancet. 1998;352:1331–6.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Hebert C, Delaney JA, Hemmelgarn B, Levesque LE, Suissa S. Benzodiazepines and elderly drivers: a comparison of pharmacoepidemiological study designs. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:845–9.PubMedCrossRef Hebert C, Delaney JA, Hemmelgarn B, Levesque LE, Suissa S. Benzodiazepines and elderly drivers: a comparison of pharmacoepidemiological study designs. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:845–9.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Ravera S, van Rein N, de Gier JJ, de Jong—van den Berg LTW. Road traffic accidents and psychotropic medication use in the Netherlands: A case–control study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;72:505–13.PubMedCrossRef Ravera S, van Rein N, de Gier JJ, de Jong—van den Berg LTW. Road traffic accidents and psychotropic medication use in the Netherlands: A case–control study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;72:505–13.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Strom BL. Pharmacoepidemiology. 2nd ed. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley; 1994. Strom BL. Pharmacoepidemiology. 2nd ed. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley; 1994.
11.
go back to reference Hennekens CH, Buring JE Epidemiology in Medicine. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia. 1987. Hennekens CH, Buring JE Epidemiology in Medicine. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia. 1987.
12.
go back to reference Neas LM, Schwartz J, Dockery D. A case–crossover analysis of air pollution and mortality in Philadelphia. Environ Health Perspect. 1999;107:629–31.PubMedCrossRef Neas LM, Schwartz J, Dockery D. A case–crossover analysis of air pollution and mortality in Philadelphia. Environ Health Perspect. 1999;107:629–31.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Maclure M. The case–crossover design: a method for studying transient effects on the risk of acute events. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;133:144–53.PubMed Maclure M. The case–crossover design: a method for studying transient effects on the risk of acute events. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;133:144–53.PubMed
14.
go back to reference Maclure M, Mittleman MA. Should we use a case–crossover design? Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:193–221.PubMedCrossRef Maclure M, Mittleman MA. Should we use a case–crossover design? Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:193–221.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Maclure M, Mittleman MA. Case–crossover designs compared with dynamic follow-up designs. Epidemiology. 2008;19(2):176–8.PubMedCrossRef Maclure M, Mittleman MA. Case–crossover designs compared with dynamic follow-up designs. Epidemiology. 2008;19(2):176–8.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Petridou E, Mittleman MA, Trohanis D, Dessypris N, Karpathios T, Trichopoulos D. Transient exposures and the risk of childhood injury: a case–crossover study in Greece. Epidemiology. 1998;9:622–5.PubMedCrossRef Petridou E, Mittleman MA, Trohanis D, Dessypris N, Karpathios T, Trichopoulos D. Transient exposures and the risk of childhood injury: a case–crossover study in Greece. Epidemiology. 1998;9:622–5.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Ravera S, Visser ST, de Gier JJ, de Jong-van den Berg LT. Prevalence, cumulative incidence, monotherapy and combination therapy, and treatment duration of frequently prescribed psychoactive medications in the Netherlands: retrospective database analysis for the years, 2000 to 2005. Clin Ther. 2010;32:2457–66.PubMedCrossRef Ravera S, Visser ST, de Gier JJ, de Jong-van den Berg LT. Prevalence, cumulative incidence, monotherapy and combination therapy, and treatment duration of frequently prescribed psychoactive medications in the Netherlands: retrospective database analysis for the years, 2000 to 2005. Clin Ther. 2010;32:2457–66.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Zambon A, Polo Friz H, Contiero P, Corrao G. Effect of macrolide and fluoroquinolone antibacterials on the risk of ventricular arrhythmia and cardiac arrest: an observational study in Italy using case–control, case–crossover and case–time–control designs. Drug Saf. 2009;32:159–67.PubMedCrossRef Zambon A, Polo Friz H, Contiero P, Corrao G. Effect of macrolide and fluoroquinolone antibacterials on the risk of ventricular arrhythmia and cardiac arrest: an observational study in Italy using case–control, case–crossover and case–time–control designs. Drug Saf. 2009;32:159–67.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Suissa S. The case–time–control design: further assumptions and conditions. Epidemiology. 1998;9:441–5.PubMedCrossRef Suissa S. The case–time–control design: further assumptions and conditions. Epidemiology. 1998;9:441–5.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Movig KL, Mathijssen MP, Nagel PH, van Egmond T, de Gier JJ, Leufkens HG, et al. Psychoactive substance use and the risk of motor vehicle accidents. Accid Anal Prev. 2004;36:631–6.PubMedCrossRef Movig KL, Mathijssen MP, Nagel PH, van Egmond T, de Gier JJ, Leufkens HG, et al. Psychoactive substance use and the risk of motor vehicle accidents. Accid Anal Prev. 2004;36:631–6.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Hernandez-Diaz S, Hernan MA, Meyer K, Werler MM, Mitchell AA. Case–crossover and case–time-control designs in birth defects epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:385–91.PubMedCrossRef Hernandez-Diaz S, Hernan MA, Meyer K, Werler MM, Mitchell AA. Case–crossover and case–time-control designs in birth defects epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:385–91.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Toh S, Mitchell AA, Anderka M, Hernandez-Diaz S, de Jong-van den Berg LT. National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Antibiotics and oral contraceptive failure—a case–crossover study. Contraception. 2011;83:418–25.PubMedCrossRef Toh S, Mitchell AA, Anderka M, Hernandez-Diaz S, de Jong-van den Berg LT. National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Antibiotics and oral contraceptive failure—a case–crossover study. Contraception. 2011;83:418–25.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Del Rio MC, Alvarez FJ. Medication use by the driving population. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1996;5:255–61.PubMedCrossRef Del Rio MC, Alvarez FJ. Medication use by the driving population. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1996;5:255–61.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Maclure M. ‘Why me?’ versus ‘why now?’—Differences between operational hypotheses in case–control versus case–crossover studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:850–3.PubMedCrossRef Maclure M. ‘Why me?’ versus ‘why now?’—Differences between operational hypotheses in case–control versus case–crossover studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:850–3.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Schneeweiss S, Sturmer T, Maclure M. Case–crossover and case–time–control designs as alternatives in pharmacoepidemiologic research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1997;6(Suppl 3):S51–9.PubMedCrossRef Schneeweiss S, Sturmer T, Maclure M. Case–crossover and case–time–control designs as alternatives in pharmacoepidemiologic research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1997;6(Suppl 3):S51–9.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Guess HA. Exposure-time-varying hazard function ratios in case–control studies of drug effects. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15:81–92.PubMedCrossRef Guess HA. Exposure-time-varying hazard function ratios in case–control studies of drug effects. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15:81–92.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Greenland S. Confounding and exposure trends in case–crossover and case–time–control designs. Epidemiology. 1996;7:231–9.PubMedCrossRef Greenland S. Confounding and exposure trends in case–crossover and case–time–control designs. Epidemiology. 1996;7:231–9.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A comparison of pharmacoepidemiological study designs in medication use and traffic safety research
Authors
Silvia Ravera
Nienke van Rein
Johan J. de Gier
Lolkje T. W. de Jong-van den Berg
Publication date
01-06-2012
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
European Journal of Epidemiology / Issue 6/2012
Print ISSN: 0393-2990
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7284
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-012-9689-3

Other articles of this Issue 6/2012

European Journal of Epidemiology 6/2012 Go to the issue