Background: The case-population approach or population-based case-cohort approach is derived from the case-control design and consists of comparing past exposure to a given risk factor in subjects presenting a given disease or symptom (cases) with the exposure rate to this factor in the whole cohort or in the source population of cases. In the same way as the case-control approach, the case-population approach measures the disproportionality of exposure between cases of a given disease and their source population expressed in the form of an odds ratio approximating the ratio of the risks in exposed and notexposed populations (relative risk).
Objective: The aim of this study was to (i) present the case-population principle design in a way understandable for non-statisticians; (ii) propose the easiest way of using it for pharmacovigilance purposes (mainly alerting and hypothesis testing); (iii) propose simple formulae for computing an odds ratio and its confidence interval; (iv) apply the approach to several practical and published examples; and (v) discuss its pros and cons in the context of real life.
Methods: The approach used is derived from that comparing two rates expressed as person-time denominators. It allows easy computation of an odds ratio and its confidence interval under several hypotheses. Results obtained with the case-population approach were compared with those of case-control studies published in the literature.
Results: Relevance and limits of the proposed approach are illustrated by examples taken from published pharmacoepidemiological studies. The odds ratio (OR) reported in a European case-control study on centrally acting appetite suppressants and primary pulmonary hypertension was 23.1 (95% CI 6.9, 77.7) versus 31 (95% CI 16.2, 59.2) using the case-population approach. In the European case-control studies SCAR (Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions) and EuroSCAR on the risk of toxic epidermal necrolysis associated with the use of medicines, the OR for cotrimoxazole was 160 and 102, respectively, versus 44.4 using the case-population approach. Similarly, these two case-control studies found ORs of 12 and 72 for carbamazepine versus 24.4 using the case-population approach, 8.7 and 16 for phenobarbital versus 21.9, 12 for piroxicam (analysed in the SCAR study only) versus 14.5, and 5.5 and 18 for allopurinol versus 3.4 using the case-population approach.
Conclusions: Being based on the estimate derived from sales statistics of the total exposure time in the source population of cases, the method can be used even when there is no information about the actual number of exposed subjects in this population. Although the case-population approach suffers from limitations stemming from its main advantage, i.e. impossibility to control possible confounders and to quantify the strength of associations due to the absence of an ad hoc control group, it is particularly useful to use in routine practice, mainly for purposes of signal generation and hypothesis testing in drug surveillance.
The authors thank Ray Cooke who kindly supervised the English of this paper. No sources of funding were used to conduct this study or prepare this manuscript. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are directly relevant to the content of this study.
Prentice RL. A case-cohort design for epidemiologic cohort studies and disease prevention trials. Biometrika 1986; 73(1): 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Klauw MM, Stricker BH, Herings RM, et al. A population based case-cohort study of drug-induced anaphylaxis. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1993; 35(4): 400–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capella D, Laporte JR, Vidal X, et al. European network for the case-population surveillance of rare diseases (Euronet): a prospective feasibility study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 53(5): 299–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capella D, Pedros C, Vidal X, et al. Case-population studies in pharmacoepidemiology. Drug Saf 2002; 25(1): 7–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern epidemiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven, 1998Google Scholar
Etwel FA, Rieder MJ, Bend JR, et al. A surveillance method for the early identification of idiosyncratic adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf 2008; 31(2): 169–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibanez L, Ballarin E, Vidal X, et al. Agranulocytosis associated with calcium dobesilate clinical course and risk estimation with the case-control and the case-population approaches. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56(9-10): 763–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laporte JR, Ibanez L, Ballarin E, et al. Fatal aplastic anaemia associated with nifedipine. Lancet 1998; 352(9128): 619–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stricker BH, de Groot RR, Wilson JH. Glafenine-associated anaphylaxis as a cause of hospital admission in the Netherlands. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1991; 40(4): 367–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Klauw MM, Goudsmit R, Halie MR, et al. A population-based case-cohort study of drug-associated agranulocytosis. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159(4): 369–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly LE, Bourke GJ, McGilvray J. Authors interpretation and use of medical statistics. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1991: 200–2Google Scholar
Miettinen OS. Simple interval-estimation of risk ratio. Am J Epidemiol 1974; 100: 515–6Google Scholar
Abenhaim L, Moride Y, Brenot F, et al. Appetitesuppressant drugs and the risk of primary pulmonary hypertension. International Primary Pulmonary Hypertension Study Group. N Engl J Med 1996; 335(9): 609–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
French Medicines Agency. Proceedings of the Commission Nationale de Pharmacovigilance [online]. Available from URL: http://www.afssaps.fr [Accessed 2011 Jul 29]
Roujeau JC, Kelly JP, Naldi L, et al. Medication use and the risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis. N Engl J Med 1995; 333(24): 1600–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mockenhaupt M, Viboud C, Dunant A, et al. Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: assessment of medication risks with emphasis on recently marketed drugs. The EuroSCAR-study. J Invest Dermatol 2008; 128(1): 35–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roujeau JC, Guillaume JC, Fabre JP, et al. Toxic epidermal necrolysis (Lyell syndrome): incidence and drug etiology in France, 1981–1985. Arch Dermatol 1990; 126(1): 37–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern RS, Bigby M. An expanded profile of cutaneous reactions to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: reports to a specialty-based system for spontaneous reporting of adverse reactions to drugs. JAMA 1984; 252(11): 1433–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wacholder S, Boivin JF. External comparisons with the casecohort design. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 126(6): 1198–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
Martin-Latry K, Begaud B. Pharmacoepidemiological research using French reimbursement databases: yes we can! Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010; 19(3): 256–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelat C, Boelle PY, Turbelin C, et al. A method for selecting and monitoring medication sales for surveillance of gastroenteritis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010; 19(10): 1009–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergu E, Grais RF, Sarter H, et al. Medication sales and syndromic surveillance, France. Emerg Infect Dis 2006; 12(3): 416–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar