1 Abstract
During the pandemic, there was concern that underascertainment of COVID-19 outcomes may impact treatment effect estimation in pharmacoepidemiologic studies. We assessed the impact of outcome misclassification on the association between inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and COVID-19 hospitalisation and death in the UK during the first pandemic wave using probabilistic bias analysis (PBA).
Using data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, we defined a cohort with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on 01 Mar 2020. We compared the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death among users of ICS/long-acting β-agonist (LABA) and users of LABA/LAMA using inverse-probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) logistic regression. We used PBA to assess the impact of non-differential outcome misclassification. We assigned beta distributions to sensitivity and specificity and sampled from these 100,000 times for summary-level and 10,000 times for record-level PBA. Using these values, we simulated outcomes and applied IPTW logistic regression to adjust for confounding and misclassification. Sensitivity analyses excluded ICS+LABA+LAMA (triple therapy) users.
Among 161,411 patients with COPD, ICS users had increased odds of COVID-19 hospitalisations and death compared with LABA/LAMA users (OR for COVID-19 hospitalisation 1.59 (95% CI 1.31 – 1.92), OR for COVID-19 death 1.63, 95% CI 1.26 – 2.11). After IPTW and exclusion of people using triple therapy, ORs moved towards null. All implementations of QBA, both record and summary-level PBA, modestly shifted ORs away from the null and increased uncertainty.
The results provide reassurance that outcome misclassification was unlikely to change the conclusions of the study but confounding by indication remains a concern.
Competing Interest Statement
MPB is funded by a GSK PhD studentship to investigate the application of quantitative bias analysis in observational studies of COVID-19. IJD has unrestricted grants from and shares in GSK. AS is employed by LSHTM on a fellowship funded by GSK. JH was employed by GSK and owned stock in GSK during the conduct of this work. CTR and JQ report no conflicts of interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://catalogues.ema.europa.eu/node/3194/administrative-details
Funding Statement
MB is funded by a GSK PhD studentship to undertake this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 27896) and the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee of the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (approval number: 22_001876).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
No additional data available. Data management and analysis code and all code lists are available on our GitHub repository.
