A quantitative bias analysis of the confounding effects due to smoking on the association between fluoroquinolones and risk of aortic aneurysm

Evaluation of quantitative bias analysis in epidemiological research: A systematic review from 2010 to mid-2023

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to demonstrate the use of quantitative bias analysis (QBA), which reveals the effects of systematic error, including confounding, misclassification and selection bias, on study results in epidemiological studies published in the period from 2010 to mid-23.

METHOD

The articles identified through a keyword search using Pubmed and Scopus were included in the study. The articles obtained from this search were eliminated according to the exclusion criteria, and the articles in which QBA analysis was applied were included in the detailed evaluation.

RESULTS

It can be said that the application of QBA analysis has gradually increased over the 13-year period. Accordingly, the number of articles in which simple is used as a method in QBA analysis is 9 (9.89%), the number of articles in which the multidimensional approach is used is 10 (10.99%), the number of articles in which the probabilistic approach is used is 60 (65.93%) and the number of articles in which the method is not specified is 12 (13.19%). The number of articles with misclassification bias model is 44 (48.35%), the number of articles with uncontrolled confounder(s) bias model is 32 (35.16%), the number of articles with selection bias model is 7 (7.69%) and the number of articles using more than one bias model is 8 (8.79%). Of the 49 (53.85%) articles in which the bias parameter source was specified, 19 (38.78%) used internal validation, 26 (53.06%) used external validation and 4 (8.16%) used educated guess, data constraints and hypothetical data. Probabilistic approach was used as a bias method in 60 (65.93%) of the articles, and mostly beta (8 [13.33%)], normal (9 [15.00%]) and uniform (8 [13.33%]) distributions were selected.

CONCLUSION

The application of QBA is rare in the literature but is increasing over time. Future researchers should include detailed analyzes such as QBA analysis to obtain inferences with higher evidence value, taking into account systematic errors.

Do fluoroquinolones increase aortic aneurysm or dissection incidence and mortality? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine the association between fluoroquinolones (FQs) use, the risk of de novo aortic aneurysm or dissection (AAD), and the prognosis of patients with pre-existing AAD.

Materials and methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science on 31 March 2022. Observational studies that evaluated the association of FQs with AAD risk in the general population or FQs with the prognosis of patients with preexisting AAD and presented adjusted effect estimates were included. Two reviewers assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE.

Results

Of the 13 included studies, 11 focused on the association of FQs with de novo AAD incidence, and only one study investigated the association of FQs with the patient with AAD prognosis. FQ use was associated with an increased risk of de novo AAD within 30 days (RR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.11–1.81; very low certainty) and 60 days (RR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.26–1.64; low certainty). Specifically, the association was significant when compared with amoxicillin, azithromycin, doxycycline, or no antibiotic use. Furthermore, patients with preexisting AAD exposure to FQ had an increased risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.50–1.73; moderate certainty) and aortic-specific mortality (RR: 1.80; 95% CI: 1.50–2.15; moderate certainty), compared to the non-exposed FQ group within a 60-day risk period.

Conclusion

FQs were associated with an increased incidence of AAD in the general population and a higher risk of adverse outcomes in patients with preexisting AAD. Nevertheless, the results may be affected by unmeasured confounding factors. This should be considered by physicians contemplating using FQs in patients with aortic dilation and those at high risk of AAD.

Systematic Review Registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42021230171].