Matching on the disease risk score in comparative effectiveness research of new treatments

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 24, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 951-961

  Wyss, Richard ^a,d   Ellis, Alan R ^b   Brookhart, M Alan ^a   Jonsson Funk, Michele ^a   Girman, Cynthia J ^a,e   Simpson, Ross J ^c   Stürmer, Til ^a  

^a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^e CERobs Consulting   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness research; Confounding control; Dabigatran; Pharmacoepidemiology; Prognostic score; Propensity score; Warfarin

Indexed keywords

DABIGATRAN; WARFARIN;

ACCURACY; AGED; ARTICLE; BRAIN ISCHEMIA; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE ASSESSMENT; DISEASE RISK SCORE; FEMALE; HAZARD RATIO; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICARE; MORTALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; SIMULATION; ATRIAL FIBRILLATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STROKE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TRENDS; UNITED STATES; VERY ELDERLY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ATRIAL FIBRILLATION; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DABIGATRAN; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MORTALITY; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PROPENSITY SCORE; STROKE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; WARFARIN;

EID: 84940959553     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: 10991557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3810     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55.
2. Sturmer T, Joshi M, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Rothman KJ, Schneeweiss S. A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 437-447.
3. Glynn RJ, Gagne JJ, Schneeweiss S. Role of disease risk scores in comparative effectiveness research with emerging therapies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2012; 21(Suppl 2): 138-147.
4. Mack CD, Glynn RJ, Brookhart MA, et al. Calendar time-specific propensity scores and comparative effectiveness research for stage III colon cancer chemotherapy. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2013; 22: 810-818.
5. Hansen BB. The prognostic analogue of the propensity score. Biometrika 2008; 95: 481-488.
6. 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.
7. Cadarette SM, Gagne JJ, Solomon DH, Katz JN, Sturmer T. Confounder summary scores when comparing the effects of multiple drug exposures. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010; 19: 2-9.
8. Miettinen OS. Stratification by a multivariate confounder score. Am J Epidemiol 1976; 104: 609-620.
9. Leacy FP, Stuart EA. On the joint use of propensity and prognostic scores in estimation of the average treatment effect on the treated: a simulation study. Stat Med 2013; 33: 3488-3508.
10. Seeger JD, Kurth T, Walker AM. Use of propensity score technique to account for exposure-related covariates: an example and lesson. Med Care 2007; 45: S143-S148.
11. Rassen JA, Glynn RJ, Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S. Covariate selection in high-dimensional propensity score analyses of treatment effects in small samples. Am J Epidemiol 2011; 173: 1404-1413.
12. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Bias due to incomplete matching. Biometrics 1985; 41: 103-116.
13. Lunt M. Selecting an appropriate caliper can be essential for achieving good balance with propensity score matching. Am J Epidemiol 2014; 179: 226-235.
14. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 1985; 39: 33-38.
15. Ray WA. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 158: 915-920.
16. Franklin JM, Rassen JA, Bartels DB, Schneeweiss S. Prospective cohort studies of newly marketed medications: using covariate data to inform the design of large-scale studies. Epidemiology 2014; 25: 126-133.
17. Schneeweiss S, Gagne JJ, Glynn RJ, Ruhl M, Rassen JA. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of newly marketed medications: methodological challenges and implications for drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011; 90: 777-790.
18. Gagne JJ, Bykov K, Willke RJ, Kahler KH, Subedi P, Schneeweiss S. Treatment dynamics of newly marketed drugs and implications for comparative effectiveness research. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 2013; 16: 1054-1062.
19. Desai NR, Krumme AA, Schneeweiss S, et al. Patterns of initiation of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation-quality and cost implications. Am J Med 2014; 127(11): 1075-1082.
20. Lauffenburger JC, Farley JF, Gehi AK, Rhoney DH, Brookhart MA, Fang G. Effectiveness and safety of dabigatran and warfarin in real-world us patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Heart Assoc 2015; 4: e001798, doi: 10.1161/JAHA.115.001798.
21. Hernan MA, Robins JM. Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006; 60: 578-586.
22. Westreich D, Cole SR. Invited commentary: positivity in practice. Am J Epidemiol 2010; 171: 674-677; discussion 678-681
23. Wyss R, Lunt M, Brookhart MA, Glynn RJ, Sturmer T. Reducing bias amplification in the presence of unmeasured confounding through out-of-sample estimation strategies for the disease risk score. Journal of causal inference 2014; 2: 131-146.
24. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1139-1151.
25. Graham DJ, Reichman ME, Wernecke M, et al. Cardiovascular, bleeding, and mortality risks in elderly Medicare patients treated with dabigatran or warfarin for non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2015; 131: 157-164.
26. Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat 2011; 10: 150-161.
27. Robins JM. Data, design, and background knowledge in etiologic inference. Epidemiology 2001; 12: 313-320.
28. Kumamaru HG, Gagne JJ, Glynn RJ, Setoguchi S, Schneeweiss S. Dimension reduction and shrinkage methods for improving high dimensional disease risk score estimation in a historical cohort. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2014; 23(Suppl 1): 267.