Role of disease risk scores in comparative effectiveness research with emerging therapies

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 21, Issue SUPPL.2, 2012, Pages 138-147

  Glynn, Robert J ^a   Gagne, Joshua J ^a   Schneeweiss, Sebastian ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Confounding factors (epidemiology); Epidemiological methods; Propensity scores; Statistical models

Indexed keywords

ATORVASTATIN; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR;

APACHE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE RISK SCORE; DISEASE SEVERITY; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG MEGADOSE; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FOLLOW UP; FRAMINGHAM RISK SCORE; HEART DEATH; HEART INFARCTION; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; META ANALYSIS; PRESCRIPTION; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; RISK REDUCTION; SCORING SYSTEM; STROKE; SURVIVOR; TREATMENT DURATION; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT INDICATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT RESPONSE;

CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH DESIGN; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROPENSITY SCORE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84860599298     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: 10991557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3231     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Schneeweiss S, Gynn RJ, Avorn J, Solomon DH. A Medicare database review found that physician preferences increasingly outweigh patient characteristics as determinants of first-time prescriptions for COX-2 inhibitors. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 98-102.
2. Harrell FE, Lee KL, Califf RM, Pryor DB, Rosati RA. Regression modeling strategies for improved prognostic prediction. Stat Med 1984; 3: 143-152.
3. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 757-763.
4. Cepeda MS, Boston R, Farrar JT, Strom BL. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 158: 280-287.
5. Schneeweiss S, Gagne JJ, Glynn RJ, Ruhl M, Rassen JR. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of newly marketed medications: methodological challenges and implications for drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011; 90: 777-790.
6. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Stürmer T. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 163: 1149-1156.
7. Myers JA, Rassen JA, Gagne JJ, et al. Effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision in effect estimates. Am J Epidemiol 2011; 174: 1213-1222.
8. Pearl J. Invited commentary: Understanding bias amplification. Am J Epidemiol 2011; 174: 1223-1227.
9. Freedman AN, Yu B, Gail MH, et al. Benefit/risk assessment for breast cancer chemoprevention with raloxifene or tamoxifen for women age 50years or older. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2327-2333.
10. Gail MH, Constantino JP, Bryant J, et al. Weighing the risks and benefits of tamoxifen treatment for preventing breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 1829-1846.
11. National Cholesterol Education Program. ATP III Guidelines At-A-Glance Quick Desk Reference. US Department of Public Health, Public Health Service, National Institute of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. NIH Publication No. 01-3305. Accessed July 11, 2011 at .
12. Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA, et al. The APACHE III prognostic system. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest 1991; 100: 1619-1636.
13. Lyden P, Lu M, Jackson C, et al. Underlying structure of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale: results of a factor analysis. NINDS tPA Stroke Trial Investigators. Stroke 1999; 30: 2347-2354.
14. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet 1974; 2(7872): 81-84.
15. Ridker PM, Macfadyen JG, Nordestgaard BG, et al. Rosuvastatin for primary prevention among individuals with elevated high-sensitivity c-reactive protein and 5% to 10% and 10% to 20% 10-year risk. Implications of the Justification for Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER) trial for "intermediate risk". Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2010; 3: 447-452.
16. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40(5): 373-383.
17. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 1998; 36: 8-27.
18. Schneeweiss S, Wang PS, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Improved comorbidity adjustment for predicting mortality in Medicare populations. Health Serv Res 2003; 38: 1103-1120.
19. Gagne JJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Levin R, Schneeweiss S. A combined comorbidity score predicted mortality in elderly patients better than existing scores. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 749-759.
20. Schneeweiss S, Rassen JA, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Mogun H, Brookhart MA. High-dimensional propensity score adjustment in studies of treatment effects using health care claims data. Epidemiology 2009; 20: 512-522.
21. Peters CC. A method of matching groups for experiments with no loss of populations. J Ed Research 1941; 34: 606-612.
22. Belson WA. A technique for studying the effects of a television broadcast. Applied Stat 1956; 5: 195-202.
23. Cochran WG. The use of covariance in observational studies. J Roy Statist Soc. Ser C (Applied Statistics). 1969; 18: 270-275.
24. Graubard BI, Rao RS, Gastwirth JL. Using the Peters-Belson method to measure health care disparities from complex survey data. Stat Med 2005; 24: 2659-2568.
25. Miettinen OS. Stratification by a multivariate confounder score. Am J Epidemiol 1976; 104: 609-620.
26. Hansen BB. The prognostic analogue of the propensity score. Biometrika 2008; 95: 481-488.
27. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55.
28. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Statist Assoc 1984; 79: 516-524.
29. Joffe MM, Rosenbaum PR. Invited commentary: propensity scores. Am J Epidemiol 1999; 150: 327-333.
30. Cook EF, Goldman L. Performance of tests of significance based on stratification by a multivariate confounder score or by a propensity score. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 317-324.
31. Stürmer T, Schneeweiss S, Brookhart MA, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Analytic strategies to adjust confounding using exposure propensity scores and disease risk scores: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and short-term mortality. Am J Epidemiol 2005; 161: 891-898.
32. Arbogast PG, Kaltenbach L, Ding H, Ray WA. Adjustment for multiple cardiovascular risk factors using a summary risk score. Epidemiology 2008; 19: 30-37.
33. Arbogast PG, Ray WA. Performance of disease risk scores, propensity scores, and traditional multivariable outcome regression in the presence of multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol 2011; 174: 613-620.
34. Pike MC, Anderson J, Day N. Some insights into Miettinen's multivariate confounder score approach to case-control study analysis. Epidemiol Comm Health 1979; 33: 104-106.
35. Glynn RJ, Schneeweiss S, Stürmer T. Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology. Basic Clin Pharm Toxicol. 2006; 98: 253-259.
36. Stürmer T, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding: dealing with observations in the tails of the propensity score distribution--a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol 2010; 172: 843-854.
37. Longmore RB, Yeh RW, Kennedy KF, et al. Clinical referral patterns for carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy: results from the Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 4: 88-94.
38. Schneeweiss S. A basic study design for expedited safety signal evaluation based on electronic healthcare data. Pharmaceopidemiol Drug Saf 2010; 19: 858-868.
39. The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. Randomized trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 1994; 344: 1383-1389.
40. Sacks FM, Pfeffer MA, Moye LA, et al. Cholesterol and Recurrent Events Trial Investigators. The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. N Engl J Med 1996; 355: 1001-1009.
41. The LIPID Study Group. Prevention of cardiovascular events and death with pravastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and a broad range of initial cholesterol levels. N Engl J Med. 1998; 339: 1349-1357.
42. Cannon CP, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 1495-1504.
43. LaRosa JC, Grundy SM, Waters DD, et al. Intensive lipid lowering with atorvastatin in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 1425-1435.
44. Choudhry NK, Levin R, Winkelmayer WC. Statins in elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome: an analysis of dose and class effects in typical practice. Heart 2007; 93: 945-951.
45. Setoguchi S, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Levin R, Winkelmayer WC. Ten-year trends of cardiovascular drug use after myocardial infarction among community-dwelling persons>or =65years of age. Am J Cardiol 2007; 100: 1061-1067.
46. Setoguchi S, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Mittleman MA, Levin R, Winkelmayer WC. Improvements in long-term mortality after myocardial infarction and increased use of cardiovascular drugs after discharge: a 10-year trend analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51: 1247-1254.
47. Cadarette SM, Gagne JJ, Solomon DH, Katz JN, Stürmer T. Confounder summary scores when comparing the effects of multiple drug exposures. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010; 19: 2-9.