首页> 外文期刊>BMJ Open >Comparing hormone therapy effects in two RCTs and two large observational studies that used similar methods for comprehensive data collection and outcome assessment
【24h】

Comparing hormone therapy effects in two RCTs and two large observational studies that used similar methods for comprehensive data collection and outcome assessment

机译:比较两项随机对照试验和两项大型观察性研究中的激素治疗效果,这些研究使用相似的方法进行全面的数据收集和结果评估

获取原文
           

摘要

Objectives Prospective observational studies (OSs) that collect adequate information about confounders can validly assess treatment consequences. However, what constitutes adequate information is unknown. This study investigated whether the extensive information collected by the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) in two OSs and two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was adequate. Design Secondary analysis of WHI data. Cox regression was used to select from all baseline risk factors those that best predicted outcome. Cox regression that included these risk factors was used for two types of analyses: (1) comparing RCT and OS assessments of the effects of hormone therapy on outcome for participants with specific characteristics and (2) evaluating whether adjustment for measured confounders could eliminate outcome differences among datasets. Setting The WHI included more than 800 baseline risk factors and outcomes during a median follow-up of 8?years. Participants 151?870 postmenopausal women ages 50–79. Primary and secondary outcome measures Myocardial infarction and stroke. Results RCT and OS results differed for the association of hormone therapy with outcome after adjusting for confounding factors and stratifying on factors that were hypothesised to modulate the effects of hormone therapy (eg, age and time since menopause) or that empirically modulated the effects of hormone therapy in this dataset (eg, blood pressure, previous coronary revascularisation and private medical insurance). Some of the four WHI datasets had significantly worse outcomes than others even after adjusting for risk and stratifying by type of hormone therapy, for example, the risk-adjusted HR for myocardial infarction was 1.37 (p0.0001) in an RCT placebo group compared with an OS group not taking hormone therapy. Conclusions Apparently the WHI did not collect sufficient information to give reliable assessments of treatment effects. If the WHI did not collect sufficient data, it is likely that few OSs collect sufficient information.
机译:目的前瞻性观察研究(OS)可以收集有关混杂因素的足够信息,可以有效评估治疗后果。但是,什么构成足够的信息是未知的。这项研究调查了由妇女健康倡议(WHI)在两个OS和两个随机对照试验(RCT)中收集的广泛信息是否足够。设计WHI数据的二级分析。使用Cox回归从所有基线风险因素中选择最能预测结果的因素。包括这些风险因素的Cox回归用于两种类型的分析:(1)比较具有特定特征的参与者对激素治疗对结局的影响的RCT和OS评估;(2)评估对测量的混杂因素的调整是否可以消除结局差异在数据集中。设定WHI在中位随访8年中包括800多个基线危险因素和结果。参与者151?870绝经后年龄50-79。主要和次要结局指标心肌梗塞和中风。结果在调整混杂因素并分层假设被认为可调节激素治疗效果(例如,绝经后的年龄和时间)或凭经验调节激素作用的因素后,激素治疗与OS结局的RCT和OS结果有所不同此数据集中的疗法(例如,血压,先前的冠状动脉血运重建和私人医疗保险)。即使在调整风险并按激素治疗类型分层后,四个WHI数据集中的一些结果也比其他数据集显着更差,例如,与RCT安慰剂组相比,心肌梗塞的风险调整后HR为1.37(p <0.0001)。一个不接受激素治疗的OS组。结论显然WHI没有收集到足够的信息来对治疗效果进行可靠的评估。如果WHI没有收集足够的数据,则很可能很少有OS收集足够的信息。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号