Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Assessing the effect of oral activated vitamin D on overall survival in hemodialysis patients: a landmark analysis

BMC Nephrology201819:309

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-018-1111-2

  • Received: 7 June 2018
  • Accepted: 22 October 2018
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

Patients with end stage renal disease have a high all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary hyperparathyroidism and vitamin D deficiency are considered part of the mechanism for the excess mortality observed. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between vitamin D use and all-cause mortality.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we included all incident patients who started hemodialysis in Taiwan between 2001 and 2009. Patients were followed from landmark time, i.e., the 360th day from hemodialysis initiation, through the end of 2010 or death. We evaluated the association between activated vitamin D use or not before landmark time and all-cause mortality using conditional landmark analysis with Cox regression. We used group-based trajectory model to categorize high-dose versus average-dose users to evaluate dose-response relationships.

Results

During the median follow-up of 1019 days from landmark time, vitamin D users had a lower crude mortality rate than non-users (8.98 versus 12.93 per 100 person-years). Compared with non-users, vitamin D users was associated with a lower risk of death in multivariate Cox model (HR 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87–0.95]) and after propensity score matching (HR 0.94 [95% CI, 0.90–0.98]). High-dose vitamin D users had a lower risk of death than conventional-dose users, HR 0.75 [95% CI, 0.63–0.89]. The association of vitamin D treatment with reduced mortality did not alter when we re-defined landmark time as the 180th day or repeated analyses in patients who underwent hemodialysis in the hospital setting.

Conclusions

Our findings supported the survival benefits of activated vitamin D among incident hemodialysis patients.

Keywords

  • Hemodialysis
  • Activated vitamin D
  • Prescribing pattern
  • Mortality
  • End-stage renal disease (ESRD)

Background

Cardiovascular disease is an important cause of death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) [1, 2]. Apart from diabetes, dyslipidemia, and atherosclerosis, non-traditional risk factors, especially secondary hyperparathyroidism, vascular calcification, and heart failure, all play important roles in patients with CKD and end stage renal disease (ESRD) [36]. In addition, vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency, which result from malnutrition, reduced 1α-hydroxylase activity, and increased fibroblast growth factor-23, are highly prevalent in advanced CKD and contribute to secondary hyperparathyroidism and adverse cardiovascular outcomes [7].

In the literature, low 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels are associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the general population, CKD, and uremic patients [814]. Pleiotropic effects of activated vitamin D include improving endothelial function, inhibition of vascular smooth muscle proliferation and vascular calcification, suppression of renin production, and modification of inflammatory response [1518]. Treatment with activated vitamin D is associated with lower incidence of left ventricular hypertrophy, myocardial fibrosis, and pulmonary congestion [17, 19, 20].

Findings from observational studies have suggested that administration of activated vitamin D was associated with reduced mortality and improved cardiovascular outcome in advanced CKD and ESRD patients [2125]. Results from one study had ever suggested that patients treated with oral activated vitamin D had a 45% reduction in mortality but the survival benefit was inversely related to the vitamin D dose [22]. Findings from another meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials had suggested that treatment of vitamin D compounds was associated with increased risk of hypercalcemia and hyperphosphatemia while inconsistently reducing parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels. The potential beneficial effect on mortality was unproven and underpowered to be evaluated because only few studies reported clinical hard outcomes [26].

In clinical practice, concerns about hypercalcemia and potential vascular calcification have confined treatment of vitamin D in patients with elevated PTH and with relatively low calcium levels. Besides, patients prescribed vitamin D are generally younger and healthier, implying unmeasured confounders that could not be removed by statistical adjustment, which could have biased the findings from previous studies [22, 27, 28].

In Taiwan, the prevalence of ESRD reached 2584 per million in 2010, while rates of 2260 and 1870 were reported in Japan and the United States [29]. Given the potential benefits of activated vitamin D mentioned above, we hypothesized that prescription of activated vitamin D should improve overall outcome in ESRD patients. Regarding the universal coverage of health care and bundled payment for dialysis in Taiwan, the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) can be employed to examine the effect of activated vitamin D in the real world setting and establish the domestic evidence for clinical practice.

Using NHIRD, we aimed to determine the prevalence of activated vitamin D prescriptions, including calcitriol and alfacalcidol, in incident hemodialysis patients in Taiwan and the association of vitamin D use with potential effect on all-cause mortality.

Methods

Data sources

Taiwan National Health Insurance (NHI) provides comprehensive health care service to over 23 million residents, covering more than 99% of the population in Taiwan since 1995. The NHIRD is established from the de-identified claims data of NHI, which comprise demographic data of enrollees, information of healthcare professionals, medical facilities, and service claims from ambulatory care, hospital admission, and contracted pharmacies.

The registry of catastrophic illness patients is a subset of NHIRD that covers patients with specific severe disease conditions that require close and costly medical care. Because patients with catastrophic illness certificate (CIC) are exempted from co-payment for related medical services, this registry is representative of most, if not all, patients with medically qualified diseases. In Taiwan, ESRD patients with uremia and dialysis dependence are eligible for CIC when they initiate maintenance dialysis, which is reviewed and approved by nephrologists in the National Health Insurance Administration.

All diagnoses in the NHIRD were coded according to the International Classification of Disease, 9th revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM).

Study design, population and outcome

We included all incident uremic patients that initiated hemodialysis between January 1, 2001 and June 30, 2009. Patients who were younger than 20 years or had past history of malignancy were excluded. Those who had kidney transplant graft failure and re-initiated dialysis were also excluded due to a very small number of patients and different patient characteristics regarding chronic kidney disease and mineral bone disorders. The diagnosis of uremia and long-term dialysis dependence was confirmed using the database of catastrophic illnesses.

The date of the first hemodialysis treatment was defined as the cohort entry date. Concerning that hemodialysis patients had a highest mortality rate during the first year following dialysis initiation [30], we applied landmark design and patients were followed from the 360th day after cohort entry until death or the end of 2010. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of National Cheng Kung University Hospital (IRB number: A-EX-104-037).

Baseline information and covariates

Baseline information including age, sex, vascular access type, baseline comorbidities, and medications were showed in Table 1. Information of baseline comorbidities were retrieved using diagnostic codes from the claims data of ambulatory care or hospital admission within 90 days prior to or after the date of cohort entry, i.e. the baseline period. We applied the diagnostic codes modified from the Elixhauser comorbidity index to define comorbidities (Additional file 1: Appendix S1) [31]. Co-medications including antiplatelets, warfarin, anti-diabetic agents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/Angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta-blockers, diuretics, and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (Additional file 1: Appendix S2) were retrieved as well during the baseline period. Information of vascular access type (Additional file 1: Appendix S3) were retrieved using procedure codes from claims data of ambulatory care or hospital admission within 360 days prior to or 180 days after the hemodialysis initiation.
Table 1

Baseline characteristics of activated vitamin D users versus non-users according to status by landmark time, before and after propensity score (PS) matching

 

Entire cohort

 

After PS match

 

Vitamin D users

Non-users

d a

Vitamin D users

Non-users

d a

N (%)

8151 (15.5)

44,606 (84.5)

 

7232 (25.0)

21,696 (75.0)

 

Age, year

58.9 (14.1)

62.5 (13.3)

0.26

60.7 (13.5)

60.8 (13.7)

< 0.01

  < 53

2847 (34.9)

10,949 (24.6)

0.25

1933 (26.7)

5967 (27.5)

0.02

  ≥ 53 and < 64

2128 (26.1)

11,653 (26.1)

 

1932 (26.7)

5728 (26.4)

 

  ≥ 64 and < 73

1749 (21.5)

11,325 (25.4)

 

1776 (24.6)

5123 (23.6)

 

  ≥ 73

1427 (17.5)

10,679 (23.9)

 

1591 (22.0)

4878 (22.5)

 

Gender (male)

3680 (45.2)

22,619 (50.7)

0.11

3540 (48.9)

10,647 (49.7)

< 0.01

Comorbidities

 DM

3327 (40.8)

26,616 (59.7)

0.38

3325 (46.0)

10,032 (46.2)

< 0.01

 CHF

2200 (27.0)

15,195 (34.1)

0.15

2136 (29.5)

6438 (29.7)

< 0.01

 MI

1932 (23.7)

13,868 (31.1)

0.17

1896 (26.2)

5574 (25.7)

0.01

 PVD

259 (3.2)

1509 (3.4)

0.01

242 (3.4)

687 (3.2)

0.01

 CVD

774 (9.5)

7095 (15.9)

0.19

774 (10.7)

2388 (11.0)

0.01

 COPD

14 (0.2)

128 (0.3)

0.02

14 (0.2)

40 (0.2)

< 0.01

 CTD

176 (2.2)

1021 (2.3)

< 0.01

163 (2.3)

498 (2.3)

< 0.01

 PUD

1344 (16.5)

8023 (18.0)

0.04

1252 (17.3)

3605 (16.6)

0.02

 Neoplasia

10 (0.1)

56 (0.1)

< 0.01

9 (0.1)

30 (0.1)

< 0.01

 Chronic liver diseases

1001 (12.3)

5353 (12.0)

< 0.01

917 (12.7)

2643 (12.2)

0.02

 Vascular access type

  

0.15

  

0.06

 AVF

6372 (78.2)

34,240 (76.7)

 

5811 (80.4)

17,145 (79.2)

 

 AVG

617 (7.6)

4308 (9.7)

 

585 (8.1)

1833 (8.5)

 

 Permanent catheter

116 (1.4)

1097 (2.5)

 

110 (1.5)

443 (2.0)

 

 Double lumen catheter

539 (6.6)

3219 (7.2)

 

389 (5.4)

1392 (6.4)

 

 Unknown

507 (6.2)

1742 (3.9)

 

337 (4.7)

883 (4.1)

 

Medications

Antiplateletsb

3929 (48.2)

24,796 (55.6)

0.15

3687 (50.9)

10,900 (50.2)

0.01

 Aspirin / Clopidogrel

2324 (28.5)

15,600 (35.0)

0.14

2189 (30.3)

6567 (30.3)

< 0.01

 Cilostazol

154 (1.9)

1146 (2.6)

0.05

147 (2.0)

440 (2.0)

< 0.01

Warfarin

143 (1.8)

988 (2.2)

0.03

140 (1.9)

387 (1.8)

0.01

Statins

1373 (16.8)

9535 (21.4)

0.12

1303 (18.0)

3820 (17.6)

0.01

Insulin

1615 (19.8)

12,898 (28.9)

0.21

1604 (22.2)

4825 (22.2)

< 0.01

OAD

1812 (22.2)

16,003 (35.9)

0.30

1809 (25.0)

5579 (25.7)

0.02

 Metformin

179 (2.2)

1857 (4.2)

0.11

179 (2.5)

530 (2.4)

< 0.01

 Sulfonylurea

917 (11.3)

8041 (18.0)

0.19

917 (12.7)

2893 (13.3)

0.02

 α-glucosidase inhibitors

148 (1.8)

1478 (3.3)

0.09

148 (2.1)

458 (2.1)

< 0.01

 TZD

81 (1.0)

684 (1.5)

0.05

80 (1.1)

253 (1.2)

< 0.01

 DPP-4 inhibitors

2 (0.02)

5 (0.01)

0.01

0 (0.00)

1 (0.00)

< 0.01

 Meglitinides

485 (6.0)

3938 (8.8)

0.11

485 (6.7)

1444 (6.7)

< 0.01

ACEI / ARB

3972 (48.7)

23,726 (53.2)

0.09

3569 (49.4)

10,730 (49.5)

< 0.01

Beta-blockers

4173 (51.2)

24,243 (54.4)

0.06

3764 (52.1)

11,205 (51.7)

0.01

Diuretics

5737 (70.4)

34,377 (77.1)

0.15

5229 (72.3)

15,793 (72.8)

0.01

ESA

1887 (23.2)

10,133 (22.7)

0.01

1691 (23.4)

5011 (23.1)

0.01

Note:

(1) The landmark time is the 360th day of initiation of hemodialysis

(2) Values for categorical variables are given as numbers (percent); for continuous variables, as means (standard deviation)

Abbreviations: DM diabetes mellitus, CHF congestive heart failure, MI myocardial infarction, PVD peripheral vascular disease, CVD cerebrovascular disease, COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CTD connective tissue disease including rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, etc, PUD peptic ulcer disease; Chronic liver diseases: chronic viral hepatitis, cirrhosis and its complications, AVF arteriovenous fistula, AVG arteriovenous graft, PS propensity score, OAD oral antidiabetic drugs, TZD thiazolidinediones, DPP-4 inhibitors dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, ACEI / ARB angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers, ESA erythropoiesis-stimulating agents

aStandardized difference (d): statistically significantly different between two comparison groups if d > 0.10

bAntiplatelets included aspirin, clopidogrel, cilostazol, dipyridamole and ticlopidine

Exposure of oral activated vitamin D and landmark design

Records of oral activated vitamin D, including calcitriol and alfacalcidol, during each hemodialysis session, ambulatory care, and hospital admission were collected. Considering the relatively late initiation of activated vitamin D in uremic patients in Taiwan and high mortality rate especially in the first year of dialysis initiation, we chose the 360th day after cohort entry as the landmark time in order to obtain more patients prescribed vitamin D (180th day as an alternative in the sensitivity analysis) to recruit as many patients in the analysis as possible [32, 33]. Patients were classified as vitamin D users or non-users according to whether they were prescribed vitamin D before the landmark time, regardless of subsequent changes in vitamin D status [34]. Patients who died or were lost to follow-up before the landmark date were excluded. This study design helps to eliminate immortal time bias or “time-to-treatment” bias.

Statistical analyses

For baseline characteristics, we used standardized difference (d) to compare the difference between vitamin D users and non-users, where less than 0.10 indicates a negligible difference between treatment groups [35, 36].

We reported crude mortality rate and estimated overall survival using Kaplan-Meier method. Conditional landmark analysis with Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate mortality hazard ratios (HR) in relation to activated vitamin D use, adjusting for potential confounders. The covariates of the model included age, sex, vascular access type, baseline comorbidities, and medications.

All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

Propensity score method

To minimize potential confounding, we calculated propensity score (PS) of oral activated vitamin D prescriptions using age, sex, vascular access type, baseline comorbidities, and co-medications. PS trimming and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) were applied to estimate population average treatment effects. Greedy algorithm was employed to match vitamin D users to non-users on PS with a ratio of 1:3 [37]. Mortality hazard ratio was estimated using PS trimming, IPTW weighting, and PS matching.

Trajectory model

To examine the dose gradient between vitamin D use and clinical outcomes, we calculated cumulative dosage in three 120-day periods within the first 360 days of hemodialysis initiation. Only those who survived 360 days were included in the analysis. In dialysis patients, the initiation and titration dosage of calcitriol or alfacalcidol are mostly 0.25 μg per day or every other day [38, 39]. We thus defined 0.25 μg as the single dosage unit for activated vitamin D for ease of reference.

For the dynamic nature of vitamin D prescription over time, we modeled the three 120-day cumulative dosage as the longitudinal outcome and used logistic regression for the group-based trajectory models [40]. Patients were classified into high-dose and average-dose users. We evaluated where the dose-response relationship existed.

Sensitivity analyses

Two sensitivity analyses were performed. It has been noted that a high incidence of drug record discrepancies existed in out-patient hemodialysis [41]. One of the most common medication-related problems is “indication without drug therapy” [42, 43]. To solve this, we performed the first sensitivity analysis by analyzing patients who received maintenance hemodialysis in hospital-based dialysis units from the 345th through 375th day of hemodialysis initiation. The urbanization of city/township where the hospital was located and the hospital accreditation level were incorporated into the Cox and PS models [44].

Using the landmark design, the patient selection was conditioned on the survival time [34]. Based on the study of the primary analysis, we included patients who survived more than 360 days to ensure adequate observation periods for vitamin D observation. However, the design limited the generalizability of our finding. We performed the second sensitivity analysis by change the landmark time to the 180th day of cohort entry to justify the robustness of our finding.

Results

Between Jan 1, 2001 and June 30, 2009, there were 83,433 incident uremic patients who had undergone hemodialysis treatment for more than 90 days. After exclusion of those who were not eligible for CIC (n = 21,380) either due to renal function recovery or non-continuation of dialysis therapy, those registered “dead” but with missing death date (n = 350), and those with date of vitamin D prescription later than the last recorded date of dialysis therapy (n = 218), a total of 61,485 patients were included (Fig. 1). Patients who were not eligible for CIC were healthier and had fewer comorbidities (data not shown).
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Flow diagram shows inclusion of hemodialysis patients for analysis. Numbers of incident hemodialysis patients included for analysis, linked to the outpatient and admission claims from the catastrophic illness certificate (CIC) for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) database within the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD)

Of these 61,485 patients, 15,793 (25.7%) patients had ever been prescribed oral activated vitamin D during the follow-up period. The median duration of vitamin D use were 354 days (IQR 89–973 days). Among these patients, 8867 (56.1%) received vitamin D in the first 360 days after hemodialysis initiation (Additional file 1: Table S1).

Patients who died (n = 5757) or had follow-up less than 360 days (n = 2971) were excluded from analysis (Fig. 1). Vitamin D users (n = 8151) were significantly younger and healthier than non-users (n = 44,606), with less prevalence of diabetes and accompanying past histories of myocardial infarction or stroke. Vitamin D users also had more prevalent use of arteriovenous fistula and less use of graft or permanent catheters as long-term vascular access (Table 1).

By the end of the follow-up from the landmark time (median 1019, IQR 473–1777 days), there were 2619 deaths during 29,158.6 person-years of observation (crude mortality rate 8.98 per 100 person-years) among vitamin D users, as compared with 18,482 deaths during 142,948.7 person-years follow-up (12.93 per 100 person-years) among non-users (Additional file 1: Table S2). The survival curve of activated vitamin D users and non-users was shown (Fig. 2). Vitamin D users were less likely to die compared to non-users in unadjusted (HR 0.69 [95% CI, 0.66–0.72]) and multivariate adjusted model (HR 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87–0.95]) (Table 2).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Kaplan-Meier Survival curve of activated vitamin D users versus non-users according to status by landmark time. Vitamin D users had a significantly lower risk of death, compared with non-users. Note: The landmark time is the 360th day of initiation of hemodialysis

Table 2

Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models examining activated vitamin D treatment as compared with no treatment by landmark time

Model

HR (95% CI)

Unadjusted

0.69 (0.66–0.72)

Adjusted

 Age and sex

0.79 (0.76–0.82)

 Age, sex, and comorbidities

0.90 (0.86–0.94)

 Age, sex, vascular access type, and comorbidities

0.90 (0.87–0.94)

 Age, sex, comorbidities, and medications

0.90 (0.87–0.94)

 Age, sex, vascular access type, comorbidities and medications

0.91 (0.87–0.95)

Propensity score (PS) method

 PS trimming (1–99%)

0.71 (0.68–0.74)

 PS trimming + IPTW

0.94 (0.92–0.96)

 PS matching

0.94 (0.90–0.98)

Note: The landmark time is the 360th day of initiation of hemodialysis

Propensity score (PS): PS was calculated with logistic regression using covariates of age, sex, vascular access type, baseline comorbidities, and medications. The PS matched methods we employed compared vitamin D users versus non-users without further adjustment of baseline covariates

Abbreviation: HR hazard ratio, CI confidence intervals, PS propensity score, IPTW inverse probability treatment weighting

After propensity score method employed and matching, the baseline covariates were balanced between vitamin D users and non-users (Table 1). The overlap of the distribution of propensity score across vitamin D users and non-users were displayed, before and after PS matching (Additional file 1: Figures S1 and S2), respectively. Vitamin D users still had a lower risk of death with the method of PS trimming (HR 0.71 [95% CI, 0.68–0.74]), IPTW (HR 0.94 [95% CI, 0.92–0.96]), and PS matching (HR 0.94 [95% CI, 0.90–0.98]) (Table 2). We had further performed a matched pairs analysis from which vitamin D users still had a lower risk of death (HR 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86–0.96]), compared with non-users.

To evaluate prescribing pattern and examine the dose response relationship, ambulatory claims for activated vitamin D prescriptions were collected in the first 360 days after hemodialysis initiation. Using 0.25 μg as dosage unit, the median (IQR) cumulative dosage were 80 (35–168), 60 (30–112) and 60 (30–112) units in three 120-day intervals, respectively (Additional file 1: Table S3).

In the trajectory analysis (Additional file 1: Appendix S4), 326 (6.2%) patients were noted to have been given higher than average doses, while the remaining 6849 (93.8%) were prescribed the conventional daily dosage (Fig. 3). Whether high dose or conventional dose vitamin D users, they were prescribed higher dose in the first 120 days. After adjustments of potential confounders, we observed a significant survival benefit in patients receiving conventional dose (HR 0.88 [95% CI, 0.84–0.92]) and high dose activated vitamin D (HR 0.66 [95% CI, 0.55–0.78]) (Table 3). Compared with conventional dosage group, the high dose group still had a lower risk of death (HR 0.75 [95% CI, 0.63–0.89]).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Result of group-based trajectory analysis. Trajectory of vitamin D dosage grouping from initiation of hemodialysis in the first 360 days. Trajectory model using 2 groups. Every 0.25 μg of calcitriol or alfacalcidol was defined as one dosage unit. The predicted dosage unit in each group is plotted with dotted lines. The observed proportion of individuals in each group are plotted in solid lines. After exclusion of the patients with upper 99th percentile dosage (n = 196) and application of trajectory analysis, the majority (dark black line) of vitamin D users (n = 6849) received a median of 110 (IQR 45–220) dosage units, while the remaining 326 patients (grey line) received higher cumulative dosages, median 805 (IQR 635–1080) dosage units, in the first 360 days

Table 3

Crude mortality rate and multivariate adjusted hazard ratio for mortality according to the different dosage categories of oral activated vitamin D based on trajectory analysis

 

N (%)

Follow-up (person-years)

Death (%)

Crude mortality rate (per 100 person-year)

Adjusted HRb

(95% CI)

Non-users

45,386 (86.0)

145,396.7

18,853 (41.5)

12.97

Reference

Conventional dose vitamin D

6849 (13.0)

24,398.0

2112 (30.8)

8.66

0.88 (0.84–0.92)

High dose vitamin D usersa

522 (1.0)

2312.6

136 (26.1)

5.88

0.66 (0.55–0.78)

Overall

52,757 (100)

172,107.3

21,101 (40.0)

12.26

 

Abbreviations: HR hazard ratio, CI confidence intervals

aThe high dose vitamin D users consisted of the upper 99th percentile of dosage prescriptions (n = 196) that were previously excluded from trajectory analysis plus the minority of higher dose vitamin D users (n = 326) in the trajectory analysis

bThe Cox model was adjusted by covariates including age, sex, vascular access type, baseline comorbidities, and medications

We did sensitivity analyses by analyzing patients who had regular hemodialysis in hospital-based dialysis units. The activated vitamin D users (n = 5449) were still younger (58.7 versus 62.1 years) and had fewer baseline comorbidities than non-users (n = 23,245). The crude mortality rate was lower in vitamin D users compared with non-users (8.60 versus 12.36 per 100 person-years) (Additional file 1: Table S2). After adjustment for age, sex, vascular access type, comorbidities, medications, urbanization, and hospital levels, vitamin D users were still associated with a lower risk of death (HR 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87–0.96]). Using PS matching, vitamin D users still had a lower risk of death (HR 0.95 [95% CI, 0.89–1.00]) (Table 4).
Table 4

Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models examining activated vitamin D treatment as compared with no treatment by landmark time in hospital-setting hemodialysis patients

Model

HR (95% CI)

Unadjusted

0.69 (0.66–0.73)

Adjusted

 Urbanization and hospital level

0.72 (0.68–0.76)

 Age and sex

0.78 (0.74–0.82)

 Age, sex, urbanization, and hospital level

0.80 (0.76–0.84)

 Age, sex, vascular access type, and comorbidities

0.89 (0.85–0.94)

 Age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline medications

0.90 (0.85–0.95)

 Age, sex, urbanization, hospital level, vascular access, comorbidities, and baseline medications

0.91 (0.87–0.96)

Propensity score (PS) method

 PS trimming (1–99%)

0.70 (0.67–0.74)

 PS trimming + IPTW

0.95 (0.92–0.97)

 PS matching (1: 3)

0.95 (0.89–1.00)

Propensity score (PS): PS was calculated with logistic regression using covariates of age, sex, vascular access type, baseline comorbidities, medications, and levels of hospital and urbanization. The PS matched methods was employed compared vitamin D users versus non-users without further adjustment of baseline covariates

Abbreviations: HR hazard ratio, CI confidence intervals, PS propensity score, IPTW inverse probability treatment weighting

Additionally, we compared 6848 vitamin D users with 50,921 non-users, using the 180th day after hemodialysis initiation as the landmark time. Vitamin D users were noted to have a lower risk of death in the multivariate adjusted (HR 0.87 [95% CI, 0.84–0.91]) and PS matched model (HR 0.94 [95% CI, 0.90–0.98]), compared with non-users. After trajectory analysis and adjustment of potential confounders, high-dose vitamin D users still had a lower risk of death, compared with non-users (HR 0.64 [95% CI, 0.55–0.74]) and conventional dose users (HR 0.76 [95% CI, 0.65–0.89]), respectively.

Discussion

In this cohort of 61,485 incident hemodialysis patients between 2001 and 2010, patients treated with oral activated vitamin D in the first 360 days after dialysis initiation had a survival advantage compared with those not treated, even after adjustment for potential confounders. The result was significant in the entire cohort using a different landmark time and subgroup of hospital-based hemodialysis patients. The presence of dose-response relationship further supported the potential benefit of activated vitamin D prescription in these patients.

According to the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Pattern Study (DOPPS), intravenous vitamin D was most common in the United States but oral administration was more prevalent in all other countries. The percentage of patients on vitamin D were 33% in France, 66% in the United States, and 39% in Japan in the DOPPS III (2005–2006) [27]. In the Current Management of Secondary hyperparathyroidism – a multicenter Observational Study (COSMOS), 48% of prevalent hemodialysis patients in Europe were using activated vitamin D, mostly calcitriol and alfacalcidol [45].

In Taiwan, oral route but not intravenous administration of activated vitamin D is reimbursed by the NHI. In our study, we found that only 25.7% of patients had ever been prescribed activated vitamin D, exclusively in oral form. The prescription of activated vitamin D in Taiwan was not as prevalent or as early as those in the United States and European countries [24, 27, 45]. This may result from the different indications between vitamin D supplementation and suppression of parathyroid hyperplasia [46]. Higher geographic latitude or dark skin may be associated with a higher prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, higher PTH levels, and more prescriptions of activated vitamin D [47]. In Taiwan, the widespread use of inexpensive calcium-containing phosphate binders may lead to reduced PTH levels, which contributed to fewer prescriptions of vitamin D. In addition, the level of vitamin D was rarely tested in ESRD patients in Taiwan and activated vitamin D was often prescribed for secondary hyperparathyroidism, which often developed in the later dialysis vintage. The median time to the first prescription was 252 (IQR 31–919) days after hemodialysis initiation, obviously later than that in the DOPPS, although the exact indications and levels of PTH were not available from the NHIRD.

In the literature, oral calcitriol use was associated with lower all-cause mortality in CKD stage 3–4 patients. In these non-dialyzed CKD studies, patients given calcitriol were older, having higher PTH level and lower glomerular filtration rate, and more were diabetics [21, 23]. In contrast, evidence from observational studies of hemodialysis patients have shown that patients prescribed activated vitamin D were younger and healthier [22, 24]. Different from the above studies, our study did not choose time-dependent exposure to assess vitamin D effect because the concept of time-dependent has been thought of as more focused on the “state of exposure” on the outcome rather than the effect of early vitamin D supplement or exposure on the long-term outcome. We also did not use marginal structural model (MSM) to deal with time-varying covariates because of lack of laboratory data and detailed comorbidity information in claims data of hemodialysis treatment in the NHI. Instead, we retrieved not only diagnostic codes but comprehensive medication use and vascular access type obtained from claims data of all medical services during baseline periods, which were deemed reliable for input in PS to adjust for imbalance between vitamin D users versus non-users.

Survival benefits of oral calcitriol have been found, in those receiving mean daily doses of less than 1 μg [22]. However, the author also found that the lower the vitamin D dose, the lower the risk of death. Using MSM, Miller et al. [48]. have found that higher dose paricalcitol was associated with greater survival in hemodialysis patients but failed to confirm this using conventional Cox model or PS matched method. However, patients taking paricalcitol represented a small proportion of the hemodialysis population in the U.S., and thus, the result could not be extrapolated to populations in other countries [48]. Concerning the high cost, paricalcitol is not reimbursed in the NHI and thus rarely used in Taiwan practically.

Randomized controlled trials comparing activated vitamin D use versus placebo are unacceptable ethically. Thus, observational studies still have a role in leading the trend of clinical practice.

The strength of this study is the large real-life cohort with detailed information of comorbidities and co-medications and a long follow-up duration up to 10 years. In addition, the inclusion of incident hemodialysis patients with utilization of landmark design reduced immortal time bias [49]. Although the design of landmark analysis introduced misclassification bias when some vitamin D users were categorized into non-users, as may underestimate the effect of vitamin D, the true beneficial effect must be even greater since we found a lower risk of mortality in vitamin D users. Despite lack of active comparators, we adopted PS matching and reduced the imbalance between users and non-users.

Additionally, our study had illustrated trajectories of vitamin D prescription dosage and to highlighted the temporal changes in the first 360 days of dialysis initiation. It is straightforward to use trajectories to classify different dosage groups which may help us to determine the dose exposure patterns. The positive association of higher dose calcitriol or alfacalcidol and reduced all-cause mortality in our analysis further supported the beneficial effect of activated vitamin D in hemodialysis patients. Reducing use of calcium-based phosphate binders should be considered to trade off for more activated vitamin D prescriptions to avoid the risk of hypercalcemia, inadequately suppressed PTH levels, or low bone turnover disease. Further study may be needed.

One major limitation of our study is that there were no laboratory data such as calcium, phosphorus, PTH, hemoglobin, smoking status, and markers of inflammatory status available from Taiwan NHI medical claims.

We conducted a stratified analysis in only female patients to minimize the potential confounding by smoking since the prevalence of smoking is very low (4.3%) among female population in Taiwan [50]. Compared with non-users, vitamin D users were associated with a lower all-cause mortality risk (HR 0.89 [95% CI, 0.84–0.94]) in females who were largely non-smokers. Such reduced effect observed in females was also similarly observed in male patients (HR 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87–0.98]), who had a smoking prevalence of 46.8%. This sex-stratified analyses provided further reassurance that the potential of confounding by smoking is very small in our study.

The overall mortality in this hemodialysis cohort in Taiwan was substantially lower than that in other countries, as may result from different race, life style, or fewer cardiovascular events and better medical accessibility due to comprehensive health insurance coverage [30, 51]. The observation from our study implies that using inexpensive activated vitamin D may bring about significant survival benefit, even though newer vitamin D analogs with fewer hypercalcemic side effects were not prescribed extensively in Taiwan.

Conclusions

In incident hemodialysis patients, treatment of oral calcitriol or alfacalcidol was associated with lower risks of death. There was no excess risk for death in patients receiving higher doses of vitamin D. Therefore, our data supports the prescription of activated vitamin D in these patients unless contraindicated.

Abbreviations

ACEI / ARB: 

angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers

AVF: 

Arteriovenous fistula

AVG: 

Arteriovenous graft

CHF: 

Congestive heart failure

Chronic liver diseases: 

Chronic viral hepatitis, cirrhosis and its complications

CIC: 

Catastrophic illness certificate

CKD: 

Chronic kidney disease

COPD: 

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

CTD: 

Connective tissue disease including rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, etc.

CVD: 

Cerebrovascular disease

DM: 

Diabetes mellitus

DPP-4 inhibitors: 

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors

ESA: 

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents

ESRD: 

End stage renal disease

IPTW: 

Inverse probability treatment weighting

MI: 

Myocardial infarction

NHI: 

National Health Insurance

NHIRD: 

National Health Insurance Research Database

OAD: 

Oral antidiabetic drugs

PS: 

Propensity score

PTH: 

Parathyroid hormone

PUD: 

Peptic ulcer disease

PVD: 

Peripheral vascular disease

TZD: 

Thiazolidinediones

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

This work was supported by grants from National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan (NCKUH-10503018). http://crc.hosp.ncku.edu.tw/upload/insidePlan/files/105.pdf

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

JYC the design of study, data collection and statistical analysis, interpretation, critical appraisal of the paper, and drafting of the work. HCC the design of the study, interpretation, critical appraisal of the paper, and editing of the work. THK the design of the study, statistical analysis, and critical appraisal of the paper. YTC the interpretation and critical appraisal of the paper. MCW the interpretation, critical appraisal of the paper, and editing of the work. CYL the interpretation, critical appraisal of the paper, and editing of the work. YHKY - the interpretation, critical appraisal of the paper, and editing of the work. All authors contributed to the development of the manuscript, and approved the final version.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of National Cheng Kung University Hospital (IRB number: A-EX-104-037). Consent to participate is not applicable because the risk of identification of the patient is minimised by measures designed to prevent the identity of the patient being revealed either to others or to the patient himself or herself.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, No.1, University Road, Tainan, 70101, Taiwan
(2)
Institute of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
(3)
Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
(4)
Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan

References

  1. Sarnak MJ, Levey AS, Schoolwerth AC, Coresh J, Culleton B, Hamm LL, McCullough PA, Kasiske BL, Kelepouris E, Klag MJ, et al. Kidney disease as a risk factor for development of cardiovascular disease: a statement from the American Heart Association councils on kidney in cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure research, clinical cardiology, and epidemiology and prevention. Circulation. 2003;108(17):2154–69.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Gutiérrez OM, Mannstadt M, Isakova T, Rauh-Hain JA, Tamez H, Shah A, Smith K, Lee H, Thadhani R, Jüppner H, et al. Fibroblast growth factor 23 and mortality among patients undergoing hemodialysis. New Engl J Med. 2008;359(6):584–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD-MBD Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of chronic kidney disease - mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). Kidney Int. 2009;76(Suppl 113):S1–130.Google Scholar
  4. Barreto DV, Barreto FC, Liabeuf S, Temmar M, Boitte F, Choukroun G, Fournier A, Massy ZA. Vitamin D affects survival independently of vascular calcification in chronic kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4(6):1128–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. National Kidney. F. KDOQI clinical practice guideline for hemodialysis adequacy: 2015 update. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015;66(5):884–930.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Garcia-Canton C, Bosch E, Ramirez A, Gonzalez Y, Auyanet I, Guerra R, Perez MA, Fernandez E, Toledo A, Lago M, et al. Vascular calcification and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in non-dialysis patients with chronic kidney disease stages 4 and 5. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26(7):2250–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Gutierrez OM. Fibroblast growth factor 23 and disordered vitamin D metabolism in chronic kidney disease: updating the "trade-off" hypothesis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(9):1710–6.Google Scholar
  8. Kendrick J, Cheung AK, Kaufman JS, Greene T, Roberts WL, Smits G, Chonchol M, Investigators HS. Associations of plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D concentrations with death and progression to maintenance dialysis in patients with advanced kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60(4):567–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Navaneethan SD, Schold JD, Arrigain S, Jolly SE, Jain A, Schreiber MJ Jr, Simon JF, Srinivas TR, Nally JV Jr. Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and mortality in non-dialysis-dependent CKD. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;58(4):536–43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Pilz S, Iodice S, Zittermann A, Grant WB, Gandini S. Vitamin D status and mortality risk in CKD: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;58(3):374–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Melamed ML, Michos ED, Post W, Astor B. 25-Hydroxyvitamin D levels and the risk of mortality in the general population. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(15):1629–37.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Wolf M, Shah A, Gutierrez O, Ankers E, Monroy M, Tamez H, Steele D, Chang Y, Camargo CA Jr, Tonelli M, et al. Vitamin D levels and early mortality among incident hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2007;72(8):1004–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Lavie CJ, Lee JH, Milani RV. Vitamin D and Cardiovascular disease - will it live up to its hype? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(15):1547–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Wang TJ, Pencina MJ, Booth SL, Jacques PF, Ingelsson E, Lanier K, Benjamin EJ, D'Agostino RB, Wolf M, Vasan RS. Vitamin D deficiency and risk of cardiovascular disease. Circulation. 2008;117(4):503–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Mathew S, Lund RJ, Chaudhary LR, Geurs T, Hruska KA. Vitamin D receptor activators can protect against vascular calcification. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19(8):1509–19.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Reddy Vanga S, Good M, Howard PA, Vacek JL. Role of vitamin D in cardiovascular health. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106(6):798–805.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Panizo S, Barrio-Vazquez S, Naves-Diaz M, Carrillo-Lopez N, Rodriguez I, Fernandez-Vazquez A, Valdivielso JM, Thadhani R, Cannata-Andia JB. Vitamin D receptor activation, left ventricular hypertrophy and myocardial fibrosis. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28(11):2735–44.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. London GM, Guerin AP, Verbeke FH, Pannier B, Boutouyrie P, Marchais SJ, Metivier F. Mineral metabolism and arterial functions in end-stage renal disease: potential role of 25-hydroxyvitamin D deficiency. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18(2):613–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Sueta S, Morozumi K, Takeda A, Horike K, Otsuka Y, Shinjo H, Murata M, Kato Y, Goto K, Inaguma D, et al. Ability of vitamin D receptor activator to prevent pulmonary congestion in advanced chronic kidney disease. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2015;19(3):371–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Wang AY, Fang F, Chan J, Wen YY, Qing S, Chan IH, Lo G, Lai KN, Lo WK, Lam CW, et al. Effect of paricalcitol on left ventricular mass and function in CKD--the OPERA trial. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;25(1):175–86.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Kovesdy CP, Ahmadzadeh S, Anderson JE, Kalantar-Zadeh K. Association of activated vitamin D treatment and mortality in chronic kidney disease. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(4):397–403.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Naves-Diaz M, Alvarez-Hernandez D, Passlick-Deetjen J, Guinsburg A, Marelli C, Rodriguez-Puyol D, Cannata-Andia JB. Oral active vitamin D is associated with improved survival in hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2008;74(8):1070–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Shoben AB, Rudser KD, de Boer IH, Young B, Kestenbaum B. Association of oral calcitriol with improved survival in nondialyzed CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19(8):1613–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Teng M, Wolf M, Ofsthun MN, Lazarus JM, Hernan MA, Camargo CA Jr, Thadhani R. Activated injectable vitamin D and hemodialysis survival: a historical cohort study. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16(4):1115–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Zheng Z, Shi H, Jia J, Li D, Lin S. Vitamin D supplementation and mortality risk in chronic kidney disease: a meta-analysis of 20 observational studies. BMC Nephrol. 2013;14:199.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Palmer SC, McGregor DO, Macaskill P, Craig JC, Elder GJ, Strippoli GFM. Meta-analysis: vitamin D compounds in chronic kidney disease. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(12):840–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Tentori F, Albert JM, Young EW, Blayney MJ, Robinson BM, Pisoni RL, Akiba T, Greenwood RN, Kimata N, Levin NW, et al. The survival advantage for haemodialysis patients taking vitamin D is questioned: findings from the Dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009;24(3):963–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Thadhani R. Is calcitriol life-protective for patients with chronic kidney disease? J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;20(11):2285–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. United States Renal Data Registry: International Comparison. Accessed https://www.usrds.org/2012/view/v2_12.aspx Feb 16, 2017.
  30. United States Renal Data Systems (USRDS) 2015 Annual Data Report, National Institute of Health, National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD. 2015. https://www.usrds.org/2015/view/v2_06.aspx.
  31. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36(1):8–27.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Dafni U. Landmark analysis at the 25-year landmark point. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4(3):363–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. United States Renal Data Registry: Mortality Accessed https://www.usrds.org/2016/view/v2_06.aspx Apr 23, 2017.
  34. Mi X, Hammill BG, Curtis LH, Lai EC, Setoguchi S. Use of the landmark method to address immortal person-time bias in comparative effectiveness research: a simulation study. Stat Med. 2016;35(26):4824–36.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Toronto: Academic Press, Inc.; 1977. [chapter 2]Google Scholar
  36. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399–424.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Lori S. Parsons ORG, Seattle, Washington. Performing a 1:N Case-Control Match on Propensity Score. http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi29/165-29.pdf.
  38. Fernandez E, Llach F. Guidelines for dosing of intravenous calcitriol in dialysis patients with hyperparathyroidism. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1996;11(Suppl 3):96–101.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. National Kidney Foundation. K/DOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines for Bone Metabolism and Disease in Chronic Kidney Disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2003;42(Suppl 3):S1–S201.Google Scholar
  40. Franklin JM, Shrank WH, Pakes J, Sanfe’lix-Gimeno G, Matlin OS, Brennan TA, Choudhry NK. Group-based trajectory models -- a new approach to classifying and predicting long-term medication adherence. Med Care. 2013;51(9):789–96.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Manley HJ, Drayer DK, McClaran M, Bender W, Muther RS. Drug record discrepancies in an outpatient electronic medical record: frequency, type, and potential impact on patient Care at a Hemodialysis Center. PHARMACOTHERAPY. 2003;23(2):231–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Ong SW, Fernandes OA, Cesta A, Bajcar JM. Drug-related problems on hospital admission: relationship to medication information transfer. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40(3):408–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Pai AB, Cardone KE, Manley HJ, St Peter WL, Shaffer R, Somers M, Mehrotra R. Dialysis advisory Group of American Society of N. medication reconciliation and therapy management in dialysis-dependent patients: need for a systematic approach. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;8(11):1988–99.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Liu CH, Chuang YT, Chen YL, Weng YJ, Liu WS, Liang JS, Incorporating Development KY. Stratification of Taiwan townships into sampling Design of Large Scale Health Interview Survey. J Health Manag. 2006;4(1):1–22.Google Scholar
  45. Fernandez-Martin JL, Carrero JJ, Benedik M, Bos WJ, Covic A, Ferreira A, Floege J, Goldsmith D, Gorriz JL, Ketteler M, et al. COSMOS: the dialysis scenario of CKD-MBD in Europe. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013;28(7):1922–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Wolf M. Should activated vitamin D be used in patients with end-stage renal disease and low levels of parathyroid hormone? Semin Dial. 2011;24(4):428–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Wolf M, Betancourt J, Chang Y, Shah A, Teng M, Tamez H, Gutierrez O, Camargo CA Jr, Melamed M, Norris K, et al. Impact of activated vitamin D and race on survival among hemodialysis patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;19(7):1379–88.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller JE, Molnar MZ, Kovesdy CP, Zaritsky JJ, Streja E, Salusky I, Arah OA, Kalantar-Zadeh K. Administered paricalcitol dose and survival in hemodialysis patients: a marginal structural model analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(11):1232–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Mi X, Hammill BG, Curtis LH, Greiner MA, Setoguchi S. Impact of immortal person-time and time scale in comparative effectiveness research for medical devices: a case for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(8 Suppl):S138–44.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Wen CP, Levy DT, Cheng TY, Hsu CC, Tsai SP. Smoking behaviour in Taiwan. 2001 Tob Control. 2005;14(Suppl 1):i51–5.Google Scholar
  51. Wu MS, Wu IW, Hsu KH. Survival Analysis of Taiwan Renal Registry Data System (TWRDS) 2000-2009. Acta Nephrologica. 2012;26(2):104–8.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement