Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Online Letters: Comments and Responses

Response to Yang and Chan. Metformin and the Risk of Cancer: Time-Related Biases in Observational Studies. Diabetes Care 2012;35:2665–2673

  1. Samy Suissa, PHD1,2 and
  2. Laurent Azoulay, PHD1,3
  1. 1Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Canada
  2. 2Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Department of Medicine
  3. 3Department of Oncology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
  1. Corresponding author: Samy Suissa, samy.suissa{at}mcgill.ca.
Diabetes Care 2013 Jun; 36(6): e88-e88. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc13-0133
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Yang and Chan (1) express uncertainty regarding immortal time bias, an established and rigorously founded principle in epidemiology and statistical sciences, and use data from the Hong Kong Diabetes Registry to quantify the effect of statin use on cardiovascular outcomes. Using the time-fixed approach, known to introduce immortal time bias, they find that statin use is associated with a 34% reduction in cardiovascular events, while the proper time-dependent approach led to a 47% increase in cardiovascular events. Unfortunately, observational research is not this simple. Two elements of the reasoning are untenable.

First, the time-fixed approach in these types of studies is simply erroneous. By this approach, a patient who was diagnosed with diabetes in 2005, starts treatment with statins in 2010, and is followed until 2012 will be considered as exposed to statins for the entire 7-year period from diagnosis to end of follow-up. This is downright incorrect since the patient was not exposed for the first 5 years and only exposed for the 2 years after starting statin treatment. Thus, the time period prior to the first statin prescription is unexposed but misclassified as exposed and is immortal since no events could have occurred during this time period, leading to immortal time bias (2). This bias can be prevented with the use of the appropriate time-dependent analyses, which correctly classify exposure during follow-up (3). Incidentally, misclassifying nonexposure to statins as exposed will, in fact, deflate the hazard ratio, not “inflate” it as the authors claim.

Second, it is problematic to use an example to disprove the bias when the example is weak. Indeed, observational studies are not suited to study intended effects of drugs, such as that of statin use on cardiovascular outcomes. Such studies will systematically be affected by intractable bias from “confounding by indication” (4,5). Indeed, the patients at risk for cardiovascular events are those who receive statins (the indication), while the patients in the comparison group do not receive them precisely because they are not indicated and thus are at a lower baseline risk of cardiovascular events. It is not surprising then that such a study would find an elevated risk of cardiovascular events with the use of statins, which is not a real increase but simply a reflection of bias from confounding by indication resulting from comparing patients with different baseline cardiovascular risk factors. The most sophisticated statistical analyses are hardly sufficient to adjust away such confounding, which is generally intractable (6). Thus, the hazard ratio of 1.47 estimated by the authors using the proper time-dependent approach is not surprising in an observational study subject to confounding by indication.

In summary, Yang and Chan’s claim that time-fixed analyses are valid with time-dependent drug exposures is plainly untenable. On the contrary, such incorrect analyses will simply introduce immortal time–biased results and should not substitute the well-established methods that properly classify exposure during follow-up. Observational studies, an important component in the armamentarium of the assessment of drug effects, must be conducted with singular scientific rigor to avoid biases, including immortal time bias.

Acknowledgments

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

  • © 2013 by the American Diabetes Association.

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Yang X,
    2. Chan JCN
    . Comment on: Suissa and Azoulay. Metformin and the risk of cancer: time-related biases in observational studies. Diabetes Care 2012;35:2665–2673 (Letter). Diabetes Care 2013;36:e87. DOI: 10.2337/dc12-2561
  2. ↵
    1. Suissa S
    . Immortal time bias in observational studies of drug effects. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007;16:241–249
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Suissa S
    . Immortal time bias in pharmaco-epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol 2008;167:492–499
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Miettinen OS
    . The need for randomization in the study of intended effects. Stat Med 1983;2:267–271
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Salas M,
    2. Hofman A,
    3. Stricker BH
    . Confounding by indication: an example of variation in the use of epidemiologic terminology. Am J Epidemiol 1999;149:981–983
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Walker AM
    . Confounding by indication. Epidemiology 1996;7:335–336
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 36 (6)

In this Issue

June 2013, 36(6)
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Response to Yang and Chan. Metformin and the Risk of Cancer: Time-Related Biases in Observational Studies. Diabetes Care 2012;35:2665–2673
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Response to Yang and Chan. Metformin and the Risk of Cancer: Time-Related Biases in Observational Studies. Diabetes Care 2012;35:2665–2673
Samy Suissa, Laurent Azoulay
Diabetes Care Jun 2013, 36 (6) e88; DOI: 10.2337/dc13-0133

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Response to Yang and Chan. Metformin and the Risk of Cancer: Time-Related Biases in Observational Studies. Diabetes Care 2012;35:2665–2673
Samy Suissa, Laurent Azoulay
Diabetes Care Jun 2013, 36 (6) e88; DOI: 10.2337/dc13-0133
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Comment on Khunti et al. Clinical Inertia in People With Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Cohort Study of More Than 80,000 People. Diabetes Care 2013;36:3411–3417
  • Response to Comment on Khunti et al. Clinical Inertia in People With Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Cohort Study of More Than 80,000 People. Diabetes Care 2013;36:3411–3417
  • Comment on Lázaro-Martínez et al. Antibiotics Versus Conservative Surgery for Treating Diabetic Foot Osteomyelitis: A Randomized Comparative Trial. Diabetes Care 2014;37:789–795
Show more Online Letters: Comments and Responses

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.