Dynamic marginal structural modeling to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of more or less aggressive treatment intensification strategies in adults with type 2 diabetes

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 21, Issue SUPPL.2, 2012, Pages 99-113

  Neugebauer, Romain ^a   Fireman, Bruce ^a   Roy, Jason A ^b   O'Connor, Patrick J ^b   Selby, Joe V ^c  

^a DIVISION OF RESEARCH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c HEALTHPARTNERS RESEARCH FOUNDATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness; Diabetes; Inverse probability weighting estimation; Marginal structural model; Safety; Treatment intensification

Indexed keywords

ALBUMIN; GLUCOSE; INSULIN; ORAL ANTIDIABETIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; HUMAN; MARGINAL STRUCTURAL MODEL; MODEL; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PATIENT SAFETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; URINARY EXCRETION;

ADULT; ALBUMINURIA; BLOOD GLUCOSE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG THERAPY, COMBINATION; HEMOGLOBIN A, GLYCOSYLATED; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MODELS, STRUCTURAL; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE);

EID: 84860586740     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: 10991557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3253     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Nathan DM, Buse JB, Davidson MB, et al. Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes: A Consensus Algorithm for the Initiation and Adjustment of Therapy: A consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diab Care 2006; 29: 1963-72.
2. Skyler JS, Bergenstal R, Bonow RO, et al. Intensive Glycemic Control and the Prevention of Cardiovascular Events: Implications of the ACCORD, ADVANCE, and VA Diabetes Trials: A position statement of the American Diabetes Association and a scientific statement of the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association Diab Care 2009; 32: 187-92.
3. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 977-86.
4. Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Backlund JY, et al. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study Research Group. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes N Engl J Med 2005; 22: 2643-53.
5. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34) Lancet 1998; 352: 854-865.
6. Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HA. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1577-89.
7. Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 2545-9.
8. ADVANCE Collaborative Group. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 2560-2.
9. Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, et al. Glucose Control and Vascular Complications in Veterans with Type 2 Diabetes N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 129-39.
10. Ray KK, Seshasai SR, Wijesuriya S, et al. Effect of intensive control of glucose on cardiovascular outcomes and death in patients with diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2009; 373: 1765-72.
11. Vogt TM, Elston-Lafata J, Tolsma D, Greene SM. The role of research in integrated healthcare systems: the HMO Research Network. Am J Manag Care 2004; 10: 643-8.
12. Rosenbaum PR. The consequence of adjustment for a concomitant variable that has been affected by the treatment. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, General 1984; 147: 656-66.
13. Robins JM. Association, causation and marginal structural models Synthese 1999; 121: 151-179.
14. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55.
15. Wang J, Donnan PT Propensity score methods in drug safety studies: practice, strengths and limitations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10: 341-344.
16. Glynn RJ, Schneeweiss S, Sturmer T. Indications for Propensity Scores and Review of their Use in Pharmacoepidemiology. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2006; 98: 253-259.
17. Perkins SM, Tu W, Underhill MG, Zhou X-H, Murray MD. The use of propensity scores in pharmacoepidemiologic research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2000; 9: 93-101.
18. Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias Epidemiology 2004; 15: 615-625.
19. Stitelman OM, De Gruttola V, van der Laan MJ. A general implementation of TMLE for longitudinal data applied to causal inference in survival analysis Tech. Rep. 281Division of Biostatistics, UC Berkeley 2011.
20. Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S. Beyond the intention-to-treat in comparative effectiveness research Clin Trials 2012; 9(1): 48-55.
21. van der Laan MJ, Robins JM. Unified methods for censored longitudinal data and causality. New York: Springer, 2003.
22. van der Laan MJ, Rose S. Targeted Learning: Causal Inference for Observational and Experimental Data. New York: Springer, 2011.
23. Robins JM. Marginal Structural Models in 1997 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Bayesian Statistical Science: 1998; 1-10.
24. Hernan MA, Brumback BA, Robins JM. Estimating the causal effect of zidovudine on CD4 count with a marginal structural model for repeated measures Stat Med 2002; 21: 1689-1709.
25. Robins JM, Hernan MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 2000; 11: 550-560.
26. Murphy SA, van der Laan MJ, Robins JM. Marginal mean models for dynamic treatment regimens J Am Stat Assoc 2001; 96: 1410-1424.
27. van der Laan MJ, Petersen ML. Causal Effect Models for Realistic Individualized Treatment and Intention to Treat Rules. Int J Biostat 2007; 3: Article 3.
28. Robins J, Orellana L, Rotnitzky A. Estimation and extrapolation of optimal treatment and testing strategies. Stat Med. 2008; 27: 4678-4721.
29. Bembom O, van der Laan MJ. A practical illustration of the importance of realistic individualized treatment rules in causal inference. Electronic Journal of Statistics 2007.
30. Moore KL, Neugebauer RS, van der Laan MJ, Tager IB. Causal Inference in epidemiological studies with strong confounding. Stat Med 2012; [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1002/sim.4469.
31. Bembom O, van der Laan MJ. Data-adaptive selection of the truncation level for Inverse-Probability-of-Treatment-Weighted estimators Tech. Rep. 230Division of Biostatistics, UC Berkeley 2008.
32. Cole SR, Hernan MA. Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 168: 656-664.
33. van der Vaart AW Asymptotic Statistics. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, 1998.
34. Ismail-Beigi F, Craven T, Banerji MA, et al. Effect of intensive treatment of hyperglycaemia on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the ACCORD randomised trial Lancet 2010; 376: 419-430.
35. O'Connor PJ, Ismail-Beigi F. Near-normalization of glucose and microvascular diabetes complications: data from ACCORD and ADVANCE. Therapeutic Advances in Endocrinology and Metabolism 2011; 2: 17-26.
36. van der Laan MJ. Estimation with Interval Censored Data in Longitudinal Studies Tech. Rep. 74Division of Biostatistics. UC Berkeley 1998.
37. Cain LE, Robins JM, Lanoy E, Logan R, Costagliola D, Hernan MA. When to start treatment? A systematic approach to the comparison of dynamic regimes using observational data. The international journal of biostatistics 2010; 6.
38. Tsiatis AA. Semiparametric Theory and Missing Data. New York: Springer, 2006.
39. Robins JM. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with sustained exposure periods - Application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Mathematical Modelling 1986; 7: 1393-1512.
40. Pearl J Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2nd ed., 2009.
41. Neugebauer R, van der Laan MJ. Why prefer double robust estimates. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 2005; 129: 405-26.
42. DxCG Inc. Boston. MA Risk Smart®Models and Methodologies Guide. DxCG Inc.: Boston, MA, 2002.
43. The HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration. When to initiate combined antiretroviral therapy to reduce mortality and aids-defining illness in HIV-infected persons in developed countries: an observational study. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 154: 509-515.