Drug Safety

, Volume 34, Issue 10, pp 861–868 | Cite as

The Case-Population Study Design

An Analysis of its Application in Pharmacovigilance
  • Hélène ThéophileEmail author
  • Joan-Ramon Laporte
  • Nicholas Moore
  • Karin-Latry Martin
  • Bernard Bégaud
Original Research Article


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.


Piroxicam Source Population Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis Primary Pulmonary Hypertension Catchment Population 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



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.


  1. 1.
    Prentice RL. A case-cohort design for epidemiologic cohort studies and disease prevention trials. Biometrika 1986; 73(1): 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    Capella D, Pedros C, Vidal X, et al. Case-population studies in pharmacoepidemiology. Drug Saf 2002; 25(1): 7–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern epidemiology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven, 1998Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Laporte JR, Capella D, Juan J. Agranulocytosis induced by cinepazide. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1990; 38(4): 387–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laporte JR, Ibanez L, Ballarin E, et al. Fatal aplastic anaemia associated with nifedipine. Lancet 1998; 352(9128): 619–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Daly LE, Bourke GJ, McGilvray J. Authors interpretation and use of medical statistics. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1991: 200–2Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miettinen OS. Simple interval-estimation of risk ratio. Am J Epidemiol 1974; 100: 515–6Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    French Medicines Agency. Proceedings of the Commission Nationale de Pharmacovigilance [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2011 Jul 29]
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Roujeau JC. Clinical aspects of skin reactions to NSAIDs. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl 1987; 65: 131–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roujeau JC, Stern RS. Severe adverse cutaneous reactions to drugs. N Engl J Med 1994; 331(19): 1272–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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
  22. 22.
    Wolkenstein PE, Roujeau JC, Revuz J. Drug-induced toxic epidermal necrolysis. Clin Dermatol 1998; 16(3): 399–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Claessens N, Delbeke L, Lambert J, et al. Toxic epidermal necrolysis associated with treatment for preterm labor. Dermatology 1998; 196(4): 461–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lear JT, English JS. Toxic epidermal necrolysis associated with indomethacin therapy. Postgrad Med J 1996; 72(845): 186–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Sullivan M, Hanly JG, Molloy M. A case of toxic epidermal necrolysis secondary to indomethacin. Br J Rheumatol 1983; 22(1): 47–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Beral V, Chilvers C, Fraser P. On the estimation of relative risk from vital statistical data. J Epidemiol Community Health 1979; 33(2): 159–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mittleman MA. Estimation of exposure prevalence in a population at risk using data from cases and an external estimate of the relative risk. Epidemiology 1995; 6(5): 551–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Suissa S, Edwardes MD, Boivin JF. External comparisons from nested case-control designs. Epidemiology 1998; 9(1): 72–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wacholder S, Boivin JF. External comparisons with the casecohort design. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 126(6): 1198–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Martin-Latry K, Begaud B. Pharmacoepidemiological research using French reimbursement databases: yes we can! Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010; 19(3): 256–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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
  32. 32.
    Vergu E, Grais RF, Sarter H, et al. Medication sales and syndromic surveillance, France. Emerg Infect Dis 2006; 12(3): 416–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hélène Théophile
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Joan-Ramon Laporte
    • 4
  • Nicholas Moore
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Karin-Latry Martin
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Bernard Bégaud
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Univ. de BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  2. 2.Pharm D, INSERMU657, Département de PharmacologieUniversité de Bordeaux SegalenBordeaux CedexFrance
  3. 3.Service de Pharmacologie, Centre de PharmacovigilanceCHUBordeauxFrance
  4. 4.WHO Collaborative Centre for Research and Training in Pharmacoepidemiology, Institut Catalá de FarmacologiaUniversitat Autonoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations