Search

The 47th annual meeting of the Society for Epidemiologic Research hosted 17 invited speakers charged by the Executive Committee with presenting some of the many ways that epidemiologists have improved the health of the general population. There were 9 “Then and Now” sessions that were structured to focus on how early epidemiologists overcame research hurdles and advanced health through innovative strategies. For most topics, a longstanding expert was paired with an excellent contemporary epidemiologist working in the area, and both were given the freedom to deliver an integrated story about epidemiology's temporal role in protecting and promoting public health. Epidemiologic discoveries in cardiovascular, cancer, and perinatal epidemiology were discussed on day 1, followed by discussions of accomplishments in reducing exposures that adversely impact health (nutrition, environment/occupation, and tobacco use) on day 2. Topics with relevancy for many aspects of epidemiology were presented on day 3, including infectious diseases, social forces, and causal thinking in epidemiologic research. Given the large number of outstanding senior and junior epidemiologists that attended the meeting, choosing speakers was a unique challenge. What became evident from all sessions was the passion that epidemiologists have for population health, tempered with concerns for remaining true to epidemiologic principles, the timely adoption of innovative methods, and the responsible interpretation of research findings.

Background The case-only study for investigating gene‐environment interactions provides increased statistical efficiency over case-control analyses. This design has been criticized for being susceptible to bias arising from non-independence between the genetic and environmental factors in the population. Given that independence is critical to the validity of case-only estimates of interaction, researchers frequently use controls to evaluate whether the independence assumption is tenable, as advised in the literature. Our work investigates to what extent this approach is appropriate and how non-independence can be accounted for in case-only analyses. Methods We provide a formula in epidemiological terms that illustrates the relationship between the gene‐environment association measured among controls and the gene‐environment association in the source population. Using this formula, we conducted sensitivity analyses to describe the circumstances in which controls can be used as proxy for the source population when evaluating gene‐ environment independence. Lastly, we generated hypothetical cohort data to examine whether multivariable modelling approaches can be used to control for non-independence. Results Our sensitivity analyses show that controls should not be used to evaluate gene‐ environment independence in the population, even when the baseline risk of disease is low (i.e. 1%), and the interaction and independent effects are moderate (i.e. risk ratio = 2). When the factors are associated, it is possible to remove bias arising from non-independence using standard statistical multivariable techniques in case-only analyses. Conclusions Even when the disease risk is low, evaluation of gene‐environment independence in controls does not provide a consistent test for bias in the caseonly study. Given that control for non-independence is possible when the source of the non-independence can be conceptualized, the case-only design may still be a useful epidemiological tool for examining gene‐environment interactions.

Background: Although the risk of bowel perforation is often cited as a major factor in the choice between colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy for colorectal screening, good estimates of the absolute and relative risks of perforation are lacking. Methods: We used a large population-based cohort that consisted of a random sample of 5% of Medicare beneficiaries living in regions of the United States covered by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registries to determine rates of perforation in people aged 65 years and older. We identified individuals who were cancerfree and had undergone colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy between 1991 and 1998, calculated both the incidence and risk of perforation within 7 days of the procedure, and explored the impact on incidence and risk of perforation of age, race/ ethnicity, sex, comorbidities, and indication for the procedure. We also estimated the risk of death after perforation. Risks were calculated with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: There were 77 perforations after 39 286 colonoscopies (incidence = 1.96/1000 procedures) and 31 perforations after 35 298 sigmoidoscopies (incidence = 0.88/1000 procedures). After adjustment, the OR for perforation from colonoscopy relative to perforation from sigmoidoscopy was 1.8 (95% CI = 1.2 to 2.8). Risk of perforation from either procedure increased in association with increasing age (P trend