Case-control study on analgesics and nephropathy (SAN): protocol

Comparisons between protocols and publications of case-control studies: analysis of potential causes of non-reproducibility and recommendations for enhancing the quality of personalization in healthcare

Background

Selective reporting of results in published case-control studies has been widely suspected, but little comprehensive information on selective reporting is available with regard to case-control studies. We aimed to evaluate the concordance of findings between publications and the protocols of case-control studies and to assess the level of selective reporting of results in case-control studies.

Methods

The databases of Embase, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to identify case-control study protocols published between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 2017. The numbers and characteristics of predefined exposures (or factors) were extracted from the protocols. The reported and unreported factors were both collected from the published studies and protocols. The frequency of selective reporting of results were estimated by identifying the discrepancies of factors between the protocols and the published studies. Study sample size and the extent of selective reporting of factors were measured by a Spearman correlation analysis.

Results

Fourteen protocols with 24 published studies and 159 factors were identified, of which eight protocols (57.1%) had discrepancies between the publications and protocols. The prevalence of incomplete reporting in published case-control studies was 42.9% (6/14), with participant characteristics, anthropometric and laboratory measurement variables more likely to be unreported. A total of 16,835 cases and 56,049 controls were recruited in the 14 protocols of case-control studies (sample size ranges from 428 to 52,596 per study). Sample size had no statistical significance with selective reporting of results (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The study protocols should be publicly available prior to the completion of case-control studies so that the potential bias can be assessed by the readers. Our findings highlight the need for investigators, peer reviewers, and readers to exercise increased awareness and scrutiny due to the undesirable practice of selective reporting of results in medical sciences causing the loss of potentially important information, thus impacting quality of personalized attitude in healthcare in the context of the predictive, preventive, and personalized medicine.

Non-phenacetin analgesics and analgesic nephropathy: clinical assessment of high users from a case-control study

BACKGROUND

A recent large-scale case-control study on analgesic nephropathy (SAN) [1] found no increased risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in users of combined or single formulations of phenacetin-free analgesics. In a subgroup of 22 high users, however, a dose-dependent increased risk was found, which raised the question if these patients presented or not with analgesic nephropathy (AN).

METHODS

The individual questionnaires of this subgroup of high users were reviewed, and the total lifetime intake of different types of analgesics was calculated. For evidence of AN, the following data were considered: (1) the amount and type of analgesics consumed, (2) the cause of ESRD, as diagnosed by the nephrologist in charge of the patient and (3) renal imaging and other relevant laboratory data.

RESULTS

This group of ESRD patients consumed on average 7.8 kg of antipyretic analgesics (range 30.8-2.7 kg) over an average of 21.5 years (range 35-6 years). Single analgesics were exclusively used by 12 patients (54.5%) and combined analgesics by 5 patients (22.7%), while 5 patients used both. None of the patients was diagnosed as having AN, and a review of the questionnaires did not disclose evidence suggestive of AN. The possibility that, irrespective of AN, the analgesic (ab)use contributed to the progression of existing renal diseases cannot be answered in the absence of well-defined criteria. The data supporting the existence of such an analgesic-associated nephropathy (AAN) are, however, not consistent and most likely due to confounding by indication.

CONCLUSION

In a group of ESRD patients with high use of non-phenacetin analgesics, no evidence of AN was found. There is no evidence that (ab)use of analgesics or NSAIDs other than phenacetin leads to a pathologically or clinically defined renal disease that could be named AN or AAN.

Analgesics use and ESRD in younger age: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

An ad hoc peer-review committee was jointly appointed by Drug Authorities and Industry in Germany, Austria and Switzerland in 1999/2000 to review the evidence for a causal relation between phenacetin-free analgesics and nephropathy. The committee found the evidence as inconclusive and requested a new case-control study of adequate design.

METHODS

We performed a population-based case-control study with incident cases of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) under the age of 50 years and four age and sex-matched neighborhood controls in 170 dialysis centers (153 in Germany, and 17 in Austria) from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2004. Data on lifetime medical history, risk factors, treatment, job exposure and intake of analgesics were obtained in a standardized face-to-face interview using memory aids to enhance accuracy. Study design, study performance, analysis plan, and study report were approved by an independent international advisory committee and by the Drug Authorities involved. Unconditional logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The analysis included 907 cases and 3,622 controls who had never used phenacetin-containing analgesics in their lifetime. The use of high cumulative lifetime dose (3rd tertile) of analgesics in the period up to five years before dialysis was not associated with later ESRD. Adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were 0.8 (0.7 - 1.0) and 1.0 (0.8 - 1.3) for ever- compared with no or low use and high use compared with low use, respectively. The same results were found for all analgesics and for mono-, and combination preparations with and without caffeine. No increased risk was shown in analyses stratifying for dose and duration. Dose-response analyses showed that analgesic use was not associated with an increased risk for ESRD up to 3.5 kg cumulative lifetime dose (98 % of the cases with ESRD). While the large subgroup of users with a lifetime dose up to 0.5 kg (278 cases and 1365 controls) showed a significantly decreased risk, a tiny subgroup of extreme users with over 3.5 kg lifetime use (19 cases and 11 controls) showed a significant risk increase. The detailed evaluation of 22 cases and 19 controls with over 2.5 kg lifetime use recommended by the regulatory advisors showed an impressive excess of other conditions than analgesics triggering the evolution of ESRD in cases compared with controls.

CONCLUSION

We found no clinically meaningful evidence for an increased risk of ESRD associated with use of phenacetin-free analgesics in single or combined formulation. The apparent risk increase shown in a small subgroup with extreme lifetime dose of analgesics is most likely an indirect, non-causal association. This hypothesis, however, cannot be confirmed or refuted within our case-control study. Overall, our results lend support to the mounting evidence that phenacetin-free analgesics do not induce ESRD and that the notion of "analgesic nephropathy" needs to be re-evaluated.