Revisiting the washout period in the incident user study design

Why 6-12 months may not be sufficient

Andrew W. Roberts, Stacie B. Dusetzina, Joel F. Farley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims: The purpose of this study was to describe how washout period duration affects the size and accuracy of retrospective incident user cohorts. Materials & methods: MarketScan commercial claims data from 2007 to 2010 were used and included adults with an antihyperlipidemic, antidiabetic or antidepressant claim in 2010. Incident user cohorts using 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-month washouts were created and changes in sample size and incident user misclassification were described. Results & conclusion: The 6- and 12-month washouts excluded 75 and 85% of the samples, respectively. Half of subjects in the 6-month washout cohorts were actually prevalent users, and the 12-month washout period resulted in 30% misclassified. Using common washout periods of 6-12 months may insufficiently address prevalent user bias in large commercial claims databases.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)27-35
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Volume4
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Hypolipidemic Agents
Hypoglycemic Agents
Sample Size
Antidepressive Agents
Databases

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Health Policy
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Revisiting the washout period in the incident user study design : Why 6-12 months may not be sufficient. / Roberts, Andrew W.; Dusetzina, Stacie B.; Farley, Joel F.

In: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Vol. 4, No. 1, 01.01.2015, p. 27-35.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Roberts, Andrew W. ; Dusetzina, Stacie B. ; Farley, Joel F. / Revisiting the washout period in the incident user study design : Why 6-12 months may not be sufficient. In: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. 2015 ; Vol. 4, No. 1. pp. 27-35.
@article{09a4fa48ed7b4592be4c4af4ec4fe69a,
title = "Revisiting the washout period in the incident user study design: Why 6-12 months may not be sufficient",
abstract = "Aims: The purpose of this study was to describe how washout period duration affects the size and accuracy of retrospective incident user cohorts. Materials & methods: MarketScan commercial claims data from 2007 to 2010 were used and included adults with an antihyperlipidemic, antidiabetic or antidepressant claim in 2010. Incident user cohorts using 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-month washouts were created and changes in sample size and incident user misclassification were described. Results & conclusion: The 6- and 12-month washouts excluded 75 and 85{\%} of the samples, respectively. Half of subjects in the 6-month washout cohorts were actually prevalent users, and the 12-month washout period resulted in 30{\%} misclassified. Using common washout periods of 6-12 months may insufficiently address prevalent user bias in large commercial claims databases.",
author = "Roberts, {Andrew W.} and Dusetzina, {Stacie B.} and Farley, {Joel F.}",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2217/cer.14.53",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "27--35",
journal = "Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research",
issn = "2042-6305",
publisher = "Future Medicine Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Revisiting the washout period in the incident user study design

T2 - Why 6-12 months may not be sufficient

AU - Roberts, Andrew W.

AU - Dusetzina, Stacie B.

AU - Farley, Joel F.

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Aims: The purpose of this study was to describe how washout period duration affects the size and accuracy of retrospective incident user cohorts. Materials & methods: MarketScan commercial claims data from 2007 to 2010 were used and included adults with an antihyperlipidemic, antidiabetic or antidepressant claim in 2010. Incident user cohorts using 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-month washouts were created and changes in sample size and incident user misclassification were described. Results & conclusion: The 6- and 12-month washouts excluded 75 and 85% of the samples, respectively. Half of subjects in the 6-month washout cohorts were actually prevalent users, and the 12-month washout period resulted in 30% misclassified. Using common washout periods of 6-12 months may insufficiently address prevalent user bias in large commercial claims databases.

AB - Aims: The purpose of this study was to describe how washout period duration affects the size and accuracy of retrospective incident user cohorts. Materials & methods: MarketScan commercial claims data from 2007 to 2010 were used and included adults with an antihyperlipidemic, antidiabetic or antidepressant claim in 2010. Incident user cohorts using 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-month washouts were created and changes in sample size and incident user misclassification were described. Results & conclusion: The 6- and 12-month washouts excluded 75 and 85% of the samples, respectively. Half of subjects in the 6-month washout cohorts were actually prevalent users, and the 12-month washout period resulted in 30% misclassified. Using common washout periods of 6-12 months may insufficiently address prevalent user bias in large commercial claims databases.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84920829972&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84920829972&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2217/cer.14.53

DO - 10.2217/cer.14.53

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 27

EP - 35

JO - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

JF - Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

SN - 2042-6305

IS - 1

ER -