MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7005660919

Risk of pneumonia in asthma patients using inhaled corticosteroids: A quasi-cohort approach

2016· dissertation· en· W7005660919 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsthmaPneumoniaCOPDIncidence (geometry)Logistic regressionObservational studyMedical prescriptionRespiratory disease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are commonly prescribed to patients with persistent asthma as the first-line treatment. Studies of ICS have generally shown a good efficacy and safety profile. However, following the Towards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) trial, several large observational studies were also able to link the use of ICS to excess pneumonia risk in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients. The risk of pneumonia in asthma patients using ICS is nevertheless a contentious issue. Methods: We formed a new-user cohort of patients with asthma aged 12 to 35 treated from January 1st, 1990 to December 31st, 2007. Subjects were identified using the Quebec health insurance databases – Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ) and followed through 2007 or until a pneumonia event, defined as first hospitalization with a diagnosis of pneumonia identified in the RAMQ hospitalization database, including deaths due to pneumonia. A quasi-cohort approach was used where all cases of pneumonia were identified and the quasi-cohort (controls) consisted of 10 person-days per case, selected by incidence density random sampling from all person-days of follow-up in the cohort. Subjects were considered currently exposed if they had an ICS prescription 60 days prior to their index person-moment. Secondary analyses were also done to investigate possible relationships of pneumonia onset and ICS doses, as well as types. A quasi-cohort approach with conditional logistic regression was then used to estimate the rate ratio (RR) and the rate differences (RD) of pneumonia associated with ICS use, adjusted for age, sex, asthma severity, and several related comorbidities. Sensitivity analyses were also performed to explore possible biases.Results: The study cohort included 152,412 patients, of which 1928 had a pneumonia event in the average of 4.1 years of follow up (incidence rate 3.1 per 1000 per year). Using the 1928 cases and 19,275 quasi-cohort person-days, current ICS use is associated with an 83% increase in the rate of pneumonia (RR 1.83; 95% CI 1.57 to 2.14), or an excess of 2.16 cases per 1000 person-years (RD 2.16; 95% CI 1.41 to 2.91). High doses of ICS (fluticasone equivalent dose: >500 μg/day) is associated with a 96% increase in rate of pneumonia (RR 1.96; 95% CI 1.64 to 2.34) or an excess of 2.42 cases per 1000 person-years (RD 2.42; 95% CI 1.52 to 3.33). The rate of pneumonia is also found to be higher in users of budesonide (RR 2.67; 95% CI 2.05 to 3.49 & RD 3.42; 95% CI 1.66 to 5.19) and fluticasone (RR 1.93; 95% CI 1.58 to 2.36 & RD 2.47; 95% CI 1.38 to 3.57) as compared to other classes of ICS (RR 1.23; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.63 & RD 1.16; 95% CI -0.19 to 2.51), which include beclomethasone, ciclesonide, and triamcinolone. Sensitivity analyses overall yield consistent results, except one which suggests potential protopathic bias through its decreased magnitude of risk (RR 1.48; 95% CI 1.22 to 2.78). Conclusions: ICS use in asthma patients is associated with an increased risk of pneumonia, particularly with high doses and with both budesonide and fluticasone. These findings require replication in view of the observed potential protopathic bias.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy→French-language works237,207→