Confounding by indication of the safety of de-escalation in community-acquired pneumonia: A simulation study embedded in a prospective cohort.
Clicks: 272
ID: 55204
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Improving Quality
0.0
/100
Combines engagement data with AI-assessed academic quality
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
73.3
/100
272 views
217 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Abstract
Observational studies have demonstrated that de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy is independently associated with lower mortality. This most probably results from confounding by indication. Reaching clinical stability is associated with the decision to de-escalate and with survival. However, studies rarely adjust for this confounder. We quantified the potential confounding effect of clinical stability on the estimated impact of de-escalation on mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Data were used from the Community-Acquired Pneumonia immunization Trial in Adults (CAPiTA). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. We performed Cox proportional-hazards regression with de-escalation as time-dependent variable and adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores. The potential impact of unmeasured confounding was quantified through simulating a variable representing clinical stability on day three, using data on prevalence and associations with mortality from the literature. Of 1,536 included patients, 257 (16.7%) were de-escalated, 123 (8.0%) were escalated and in 1156 (75.3%) the antibiotic spectrum remained unchanged. Crude 30-day mortality was 3.5% (9/257) and 10.9% (107/986) in the de-escalation and continuation groups, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio of de-escalation for 30-day mortality (compared to patients with unchanged coverage), without adjustment for clinical stability, was 0.39 (95%CI: 0.19-0.79). If 90% to 100% of de-escalated patients were clinically stable on day three, the fully adjusted hazard ratio would be 0.56 (95%CI: 0.27-1.12) to 1.04 (95%CI: 0.49-2.23), respectively. The simulated confounder was substantially stronger than any of the baseline confounders in our dataset. Quantification of effects of de-escalation on patient outcomes without proper adjustment for clinical stability results in strong negative bias. This study suggests the effect of de-escalation on mortality needs further well-designed prospective research to determine effect size more accurately.Reference Key |
van-heijl2019confoundingplos
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
---|---|
Authors | van Heijl, Inger;Schweitzer, Valentijn A;Boel, C H Edwin;Oosterheert, Jan Jelrik;Huijts, Susanne M;Dorigo-Zetsma, Wendelien;van der Linden, Paul D;Bonten, Marc J M;van Werkhoven, Cornelis H; |
Journal | PloS one |
Year | 2019 |
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0218062 |
URL | |
Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.