Use of signal detection methods to identify associations between prenatal medication exposure and subsequent childhood cancers: a Nordic hypothesis-generating registry-based study.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Expert Opinion on Drug Safety Pub Date : 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1080/14740338.2025.2461204
Hannah Johnson, Sarah Hjorth, Joan Morris, Anton Pottegård, Maarit Leinonen, Ulrika Norby, Hedvig Nordeng
{"title":"Use of signal detection methods to identify associations between prenatal medication exposure and subsequent childhood cancers: a Nordic hypothesis-generating registry-based study.","authors":"Hannah Johnson, Sarah Hjorth, Joan Morris, Anton Pottegård, Maarit Leinonen, Ulrika Norby, Hedvig Nordeng","doi":"10.1080/14740338.2025.2461204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Childhood cancer is an important contributor to childhood mortality in high-income countries. Information on associations between childhood cancer and in-utero exposure is absent or limited for most medications. Signal detection methods identify medications where research should be focused but have not been applied to datasets containing prenatal medication exposures and childhood cancers.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>The aim of this study was to apply and evaluate four signal detection methods - odds ratios (OR), the information component (IC), sequential probability ratio testing (SPRT), and Bayesian hierarchical models (BHM) - for identification of associations between medications dispensed during pregnancy and subsequent, incident diagnosis of childhood cancer <10 years, using linked Nordic registry data. Signal detection results were compared to propensity score adjusted odds ratios from generalized linear models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis was performed for 117 medication-cancer pairs with 5 or more observations. The OR had the greatest sensitivity (0.75). The IC had a greater specificity (0.98) than the OR (0.95).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The IC may be the most appropriate method for identifying signals within this type of data. Reported signals should not be considered sufficient evidence of causal association and must be followed-up by tailored investigations that consider confounding by indication.</p>","PeriodicalId":12232,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Drug Safety","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2025.2461204","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Childhood cancer is an important contributor to childhood mortality in high-income countries. Information on associations between childhood cancer and in-utero exposure is absent or limited for most medications. Signal detection methods identify medications where research should be focused but have not been applied to datasets containing prenatal medication exposures and childhood cancers.

Research design and methods: The aim of this study was to apply and evaluate four signal detection methods - odds ratios (OR), the information component (IC), sequential probability ratio testing (SPRT), and Bayesian hierarchical models (BHM) - for identification of associations between medications dispensed during pregnancy and subsequent, incident diagnosis of childhood cancer <10 years, using linked Nordic registry data. Signal detection results were compared to propensity score adjusted odds ratios from generalized linear models.

Results: Analysis was performed for 117 medication-cancer pairs with 5 or more observations. The OR had the greatest sensitivity (0.75). The IC had a greater specificity (0.98) than the OR (0.95).

Conclusions: The IC may be the most appropriate method for identifying signals within this type of data. Reported signals should not be considered sufficient evidence of causal association and must be followed-up by tailored investigations that consider confounding by indication.

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
使用信号检测方法来确定产前药物暴露与随后的儿童癌症之间的关联:北欧一项基于登记的假设生成研究。
背景:儿童癌症是高收入国家儿童死亡率的一个重要因素。关于儿童癌症和宫内暴露之间关系的信息对于大多数药物来说是缺乏或有限的。信号检测方法确定了应该重点研究的药物,但尚未应用于包含产前药物暴露和儿童癌症的数据集。研究设计和方法:本研究的目的是应用和评估四种信号检测方法——比值比(OR)、信息成分(IC)、序列概率比检验(SPRT)和贝叶斯层次模型(BHM)——用于识别怀孕期间配药与随后儿童癌症事件诊断之间的关联。结果:对117对药物-癌症进行了分析,有5个或更多的观察结果。OR的灵敏度最高(0.75)。IC的特异性(0.98)高于OR(0.95)。结论:IC可能是识别这类数据中信号的最合适方法。报告的信号不应被认为是因果关系的充分证据,必须进行有针对性的调查,考虑到指征的混淆性。
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
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
97
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Opinion on Drug Safety ranks #62 of 216 in the Pharmacology & Pharmacy category in the 2008 ISI Journal Citation Reports. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety (ISSN 1474-0338 [print], 1744-764X [electronic]) is a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, international journal publishing review articles on all aspects of drug safety and original papers on the clinical implications of drug treatment safety issues, providing expert opinion on the scope for future development.
期刊最新文献
Risk of active tuberculosis and herpes zoster with tumour necrosis factor inhibitor treatment in adults with autoimmune disease conditions: a systematic trial sequential analysis of randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials. Biologic and targeted synthetic therapies in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a review of current and emerging therapeutic agents. Who is missing from SGLT-2 inhibitor trials? implications for drug safety and seneralizability: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chronic sequelae of immune-related adverse events. GLP-1 receptor agonists in older people with type 2 diabetes: safety evidence from the real world.
×
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:604180095
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