ArticleClinical epidemiology2025
Validation of Medication Proxies for the Identification of Hospitalizations for Major Adverse Cerebro-Cardiovascular Events.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To date, complete and long-term registrations of diseases and events are not available in every situation. As a useful proxy, medication usage data is very promising. For instance, real-world dispensing data from pharmacies are attractive because of the high validity of drug dispensing data, large sample sizes, and long-term registration. However, before application as a proxy, validity must be assessed. Therefore, in this study, we aim to assess the validity of various medicines used as a proxy for major adverse cardio-cerebrovascular events (MACCE), that is, to identify an incident or previous hospitalization for a MACCE. Patients and Methods: Using the claims database of a large Dutch healthcare insurer, we estimated the concordance between hospitalization claims for MACCE and specific claims for dispensings to treat MACCE in a cohort of patients on primary preventive antihypertensive and/or antihyperlipidemic therapy between 2013 and 2020. Results: In a cohort of more than 110,000 patients, a dispensing of either vitamin K antagonists, platelet aggregation inhibitors, or nitrates was predictive of an incident hospitalization for a MACCE between 2013 and 2020, with a sensitivity of 71.5% (95% CI: 70.4-72.5%) and specificity of 93.2% (95% CI 91.1-93.4%), and any history of hospitalization for a MACCE (prevalence) with a sensitivity of 86.9% (95% CI: 86.5-87.3%) and specificity of 81.9 (956% CI: 81.6-82.1%), while positive predicted value remains low. Sensitivity analyses across age, sex, and patients with asthma/COPD or diabetes showed a similarly good performance. Conclusion: Claims for the dispensings of vitamin K antagonists, platelet aggregation inhibitors, and/or nitrates can be validly used as a proxy for new and previous hospitalization for MACCE in patients on primary preventive therapy. Further study is required to assess the validity of such dispensing claims for non-hospitalized cerebro-cardiovascular events and whether the results are generalizable in non-Dutch cohorts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.