Association between a recalled positive airway pressure device and incident cancer: a population-based study.

IF 16.6 1区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM European Respiratory Journal Pub Date : 2024-11-07 Print Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1183/13993003.00560-2024
Tetyana Kendzerska, Sachin R Pendharkar, Robert Talarico, Kenneth Blades, Constance Mackenzie, Andrea S Gershon, Najib Ayas, Marta Kaminska, Mark Fenton, Kerry A McBrien, Steven Hawken, Diana Ratycz, Vadym Lishchenko, Robert L Owens, Marcus Povitz
{"title":"Association between a recalled positive airway pressure device and incident cancer: a population-based study.","authors":"Tetyana Kendzerska, Sachin R Pendharkar, Robert Talarico, Kenneth Blades, Constance Mackenzie, Andrea S Gershon, Najib Ayas, Marta Kaminska, Mark Fenton, Kerry A McBrien, Steven Hawken, Diana Ratycz, Vadym Lishchenko, Robert L Owens, Marcus Povitz","doi":"10.1183/13993003.00560-2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The real-world consequences of a Philips Respironics recall for positive airway pressure (PAP) devices distributed between 2009 and 2021 are unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective population-based study using health administrative databases (Ontario, Canada) on all new adult PAP users identified through the provincial funding system, free of cancer at baseline, who initiated (claimed) PAP treatment between 2012 and 2018. Everyone was followed from the PAP claim date to the earliest of incident cancer diagnosis, death or end of follow-up (March 2022). We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance baseline characteristics between individuals on recalled devices and those on devices from other manufacturers. Weighted hazard ratios of incident cancer were compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 231 692 individuals identified, 58 204 (25.1%) claimed recalled devices and 173 488 (74.9%) claimed devices from other manufacturers. A meaningful baseline difference between groups (standardised difference ≥0.10) was noted only by location-relevant covariates; other variables were mostly equally distributed (standardised differences ≤0.06). Over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 6.3 (4.9-8.0) years, 11 166 (4.8%) developed cancer: unadjusted rates per 10 000 person-years of 78.8 (95% CI 76.0-81.7) in the recall group <i>versus</i> 74.0 (95% CI 72.4-75.6) in others (p=0.0034). Propensity score weighting achieved excellent balance in baseline characteristics between groups (standardised differences ≤0.07). On a weighted sample, there was no statistical difference in the hazard of incident cancer between groups: cause-specific hazard ratio (recalled <i>versus</i> others) 0.97 (95% CI 0.89-1.06).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our real-world population study, compared to other manufacturers and adjusting for confounders, recalled Philips Respironics PAP devices do not appear to be independently associated with developing cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":12265,"journal":{"name":"European Respiratory Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00560-2024","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The real-world consequences of a Philips Respironics recall for positive airway pressure (PAP) devices distributed between 2009 and 2021 are unknown.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective population-based study using health administrative databases (Ontario, Canada) on all new adult PAP users identified through the provincial funding system, free of cancer at baseline, who initiated (claimed) PAP treatment between 2012 and 2018. Everyone was followed from the PAP claim date to the earliest of incident cancer diagnosis, death or end of follow-up (March 2022). We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance baseline characteristics between individuals on recalled devices and those on devices from other manufacturers. Weighted hazard ratios of incident cancer were compared between groups.

Results: Of 231 692 individuals identified, 58 204 (25.1%) claimed recalled devices and 173 488 (74.9%) claimed devices from other manufacturers. A meaningful baseline difference between groups (standardised difference ≥0.10) was noted only by location-relevant covariates; other variables were mostly equally distributed (standardised differences ≤0.06). Over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 6.3 (4.9-8.0) years, 11 166 (4.8%) developed cancer: unadjusted rates per 10 000 person-years of 78.8 (95% CI 76.0-81.7) in the recall group versus 74.0 (95% CI 72.4-75.6) in others (p=0.0034). Propensity score weighting achieved excellent balance in baseline characteristics between groups (standardised differences ≤0.07). On a weighted sample, there was no statistical difference in the hazard of incident cancer between groups: cause-specific hazard ratio (recalled versus others) 0.97 (95% CI 0.89-1.06).

Conclusion: In our real-world population study, compared to other manufacturers and adjusting for confounders, recalled Philips Respironics PAP devices do not appear to be independently associated with developing cancer.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
回收的气道正压(PAP)设备与癌症发病率之间的关系:一项基于人群的研究。
背景:Philips/Respironics 在 2009 年至 2021 年期间召回正压通气设备的实际后果尚不清楚:Philips/Respironics 在 2009 年至 2021 年间召回正气压(PAP)设备的实际后果尚不清楚:我们利用卫生行政数据库(加拿大安大略省)开展了一项基于人群的回顾性研究,研究对象是通过省级资助系统确认的所有新的成人正压呼吸器用户,他们在基线时未患癌症,并在 2012 年至 2018 年期间开始(申请)正压呼吸器治疗。每个人都从 PAP 申请日期开始随访,直至最早的癌症诊断、死亡或随访结束(2022 年 3 月)。我们使用治疗反概率加权法来平衡使用召回设备和使用其他制造商设备的个体之间的基线特征。我们比较了各组间癌症发病的加权危险比:在已确认的 231 692 人中,58 204 人(25.1%)使用了召回设备,173 488 人(74.9%)使用了其他制造商的设备。只有与地点相关的协变量表明组间存在有意义的基线差异(标准化差异≥0.10);其他变量大多分布均衡(标准化差异≤0.06)。在中位随访 6.3 年(IQR:4.9-8.0)期间,11 166 人(4.8%)罹患癌症:召回组每 10 000 人-年(95 CI%)的未调整率为 78.8(76.0-81.7),而其他组为 74.0(72.4-75.6)(P=0.0034)。倾向得分加权法使各组之间的基线特征达到了极佳的平衡(标准化差异≤0.07)。在加权样本中,各组间癌症发病风险无统计学差异:特定病因风险比(回忆与其他)为 0.97,95% CI:0.89-1.06:在我们的真实世界人群研究中,与其他制造商相比,并对混杂因素进行调整后,召回器械似乎与癌症的发生并无独立关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Respiratory Journal
European Respiratory Journal 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
27.50
自引率
3.30%
发文量
345
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Respiratory Journal (ERJ) is the flagship journal of the European Respiratory Society. It has a current impact factor of 24.9. The journal covers various aspects of adult and paediatric respiratory medicine, including cell biology, epidemiology, immunology, oncology, pathophysiology, imaging, occupational medicine, intensive care, sleep medicine, and thoracic surgery. In addition to original research material, the ERJ publishes editorial commentaries, reviews, short research letters, and correspondence to the editor. The articles are published continuously and collected into 12 monthly issues in two volumes per year.
期刊最新文献
Genome-wide association study of susceptibility to Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in cystic fibrosis. Association between a recalled positive airway pressure device and incident cancer: a population-based study. Reassessing Halm's clinical stability criteria in community-acquired pneumonia management. Treatment of latent tuberculosis infection in migrants in primary care versus secondary care. Accuracy of CAD4TB (Computer-Aided Detection for Tuberculosis) on paediatric chest radiographs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1