23 However, the study was retrospective, and with <1000 cases lim

23 However, the study was retrospective, and with <1000 cases limiting its power. In contrast to the “extra PAF” we calculated, the adjusted PAFs in their article calculated the effect of each exposure in a pseudo-population with no other risk factors present, potentially overestimating the effect in the general population, in which a case can be caused by many risk factors. The second comparable paper of Gallerani et al found an association with comorbidity and a similar

2-fold increase in risk LBH589 mw in those exposed to NSAIDs to what we found in our peptic ulcer cohort.10 However, it was also a retrospective survey–based study potentially subject to recall bias, and had <1000 cases. Furthermore, the authors did not separate out gastrointestinal comorbidity from nongastrointestinal comorbidity and used hospital controls, therefore limiting comparisons with our population-based study. Other studies assessed higher alcohol intake,24H pylori, 25 smoking, 26 acute renal failure, 27 and acute myocardial infarction 28 and found associations with upper GIB. But these studies were in small selected hospitalised cohorts (n < 1000 bleeds) with limited assessments of individual comorbidity and no measure

of their PAFs. Our study has a number of important strengths when compared with these previous works because we set out specifically to assess the degree to which nongastrointestinal comorbidity predicts nonvariceal upper GIB after removing the effects of all the available known risk factors in a much larger general population. SB203580 mouse In addition, we used a method of defining cases and exposures that utilized information from both primary and secondary care, thereby Parvulin maximizing the evidence supporting each case while not excluding

severe events.14 Furthermore, due to the comprehensive coverage of the English primary care system, our study’s results are likely to be generalizable to the whole English population and, we believe, further afield. The linked dataset used for our study remained representative of the GPRD overall, as whole practices rather than individual patients declined or consented to the linkage. Consequently, we were able to estimate the additional attributable fraction for comorbidity in the English population that was not already attributable to other risk factors.19 As our study was one of the first to assess the effect of the burden of comorbidity as a risk factor for upper GIB, no measure of comorbidity had been specifically validated for this purpose. We decided to use the Charlson Index because it is a well-validated score for measuring comorbidity in many different contexts. Other comorbidity scores that could be used, such as the Elixhauser Index or a simple counts of diagnoses, have been used and validated less frequently and in fewer contexts.

Comments are closed.