Methods to control for unmeasured confounding in pharmacoepidemiology: an overview

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 714-723

  Uddin, Md Jamal ^a,b   Groenwold, Rolf H H ^c   Ali, Mohammed Sanni ^c   de Boer, Anthonius ^b   Roes, Kit C B ^c   Chowdhury, Muhammad A B ^d   Klungel, Olaf H ^b  

^a SHAHJALAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Bangladesh)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^d FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Observational studies; Pharmacoepidemiology; Residual confounding; Review; Statistical methods; Unmeasured confounding; Unobserved confounding

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CASE CROSSOVER DESIGN; CASE STUDY; CASE TIME CONTROL DESIGN; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; DATA ANALYSIS; ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INSTRUMENTAL VARIABLE METHOD; METHODOLOGY; NEGATIVE CONTROL METHOD; PERTURBATION VARIABLE METHOD; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PRIOR EVENT RATE RATIO ADJUSTMENT METHOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; SELF CONTROLLED CASE SERIES DESIGN; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN; UNMEASURED CONFOUNDING; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS;

HUMANS; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; RESEARCH DESIGN; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84964325837     PISSN: 22107703     EISSN: 22107711     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-016-0299-0     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Grobbee DE, Hoes AW. Clinical epidemiology: principles, methods, and applications for clinical research. Jones & Bartlett Learning, ISBN: 1449674321; 2009.
2. Vandenbroucke JP. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet. 2004;363(9422):1728–31.
3. Berger ML, Martin BC, Husereau D, Worley K, Allen JD, Yang W, et al. A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. Value Health. 2014;17(2):143–56.
4. Feinstein AR. Current problems and future challenges in randomized clinical trials. Circulation. 1984;70(5):767–74.
5. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. Br Med J. 1996;312(7040):1215–8.
6. Brookhart MA, Stürmer T, Glynn RJ, Rassen J, Schneeweiss S. Confounding control in healthcare database research: challenges and potential approaches. Med Care. 2010;48(6 SUPPL.):S114–20.
7. Baiocchi M, Cheng J, Small DS. Instrumental variable methods for causal inference. Stat Med. 2014;33(13):2297–340.
8. McMahon AD. Approaches to combat with confounding by indication in observational studies of intended drug effects. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2003;12(7):551–8.
9. Klungel OH, Martens EP, Psaty BM, Grobbee DE, Sullivan SD, Stricker BHC, et al. Methods to assess intended effects of drug treatment in observational studies are reviewed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(12):1223–31.
10. Bosco JLF, Silliman RA, Thwin SS, Geiger AM, Buist DSM, Prout MN, et al. A most stubborn bias: no adjustment method fully resolves confounding by indication in observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(1):64–74.
11. Groenwold RHH, Hak E, Hoes AW. Quantitative assessment of unobserved confounding is mandatory in nonrandomized intervention studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(1):22–8.
12. Velentgas P, Dreyer NA, Nourjah P, Smith SR, Torchia MM, editors. Developing a protocol for observational comparative effectiveness research: a user’s guide. AHRQ Publication No. 12(13)-EHC099. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; January 2013. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/Methods-OCER.cfm.
13. VanderWeele TJ, Shpitser I. On the definition of a confounder. Ann Stat. 2013;41(1):196–220.
14. Alemayehu D, Alvir JM, Jones B, Willke RJ. Statistical issues with the analysis of nonrandomized studies in comparative effectiveness research. J Manag Care Pharm. 2011;17(9 Suppl A):S22–6.
15. Schneeweiss S, Seeger JD, Smith SR. Methods for developing and analyzing clinically rich data for patient-centered outcomes research: an overview. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(Suppl. 2):1–5.
16. Groenwold RHH, Hoes A, Nichol KL, Hak E. Quantifying the potential role of unmeasured confounders: the example of influenza vaccination. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;37(6):1422–9.
17. Schneeweiss S. Sensitivity analysis and external adjustment for unmeasured confounders in epidemiologic database studies of therapeutics. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15(5):291–303.
18. Brookhart MA, Wang PS, Solomon DH, Schneeweiss S. Evaluating short-term drug effects using a physician-specific prescribing preference as an instrumental variable. Epidemiology. 2006;17(3):268–75.
19. Lu CY. Observational studies: a review of study designs, challenges and strategies to reduce confounding. Int J Clin Pract. 2009;63(5):691–7.
20. Bradbury BD, Gilbertson DT, Brookhart MA, Kilpatrick RD. Confounding and control of confounding in nonexperimental studies of medications in patients with CKD. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2012;19(1):19–26.
21. Wunsch H, Linde-Zwirble WT, Angus DC. Methods to adjust for bias and confounding in critical care health services research involving observational data. J Crit Care. 2006;21(1):1–7.
22. Stürmer T, Glynn RJ, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Schneeweiss S. Adjustments for unmeasured confounders in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies using external information. Med Care. 2007;45(10 SUPPL. 2):S158–65.
23. Maclure M. The case-crossover design: a method for studying transient effects on the risk of acute events. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;133(2):144–53.
24. Nordmann S, Biard L, Ravaud P, Esposito-Farèse M, Tubach F. Case-only designs in pharmacoepidemiology: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49444.
25. Schneeweiss S, Stürmer T, Maclure M. Case-crossover and case-time-control designs as alternatives in pharmacoepidemiologic research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 1997;6(SUPPL. 3):S51–9.
26. Delaney JA, Suissa S. The case-crossover study design in pharmacoepidemiology. Stat Methods Med Res. 2009;18(1):53–65.
27. Aberra FN, Brensinger CM, Bilker WB, Lichtenstein GR, Lewis JD. Antibiotic use and the risk of flare of inflammatory bowel disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3(5):459–65.
28. Ray WA, Fought RL, Decker MD. Psychoactive drugs and the risk of injurious motor vehicle crashes in elderly drivers. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;136(7):873–83.
29. Hebert C, Delaney J, Hemmelgarn B, Lévesque LE, Suissa S. Benzodiazepines and elderly drivers: a comparison of pharmacoepidemiological study designs. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16(8):845–9.
30. Suissa S. The case-time-control design. Epidemiology. 1995;6(3):248–53.
31. Wang SV, Coull BA, Schwartz J, Mittleman MA, Wellenius GA. Potential for bias in case-crossover studies with shared exposures analyzed using SAS. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;174(1):118–24.
32. Hernandez-Diaz S, Hernan MA, Meyer K, Werler MM, Mitchell AA. Case-crossover and case-time-control designs in birth defects epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158(4):385–91.
33. Schneider MF, Gange SJ, Margolick JB, Detels R, Chmiel JS, Rinaldo C, et al. Application of case-crossover and case–time–control study designs in analyses of time-varying predictors of T-cell homeostasis failure. Ann Epidemiol. 2005;15(2):137–44.
34. Farrington CP. Relative incidence estimation from case series for vaccine safety evaluation. Biometrics. 1995;51(1):228–35.
35. Whitaker HJ, Hocine MN, Farrington CP. The methodology of self-controlled case series studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 2009;18(1):7–26.
36. Whitaker HJ, Farrington CP, Spiessens B, Musonda P. Tutorial in biostatistics: the self-controlled case series method. Stat Med. 2006;25(10):1768–97.
37. The Self Controlled Case Series Method (internet). The Open University, UK (updated 2010; cited 2015 Dec 4). http://statistics.open.ac.uk/sccs/index.htm.
38. Yu M, Xie D, Wang X, Weiner MG, Tannen RL. Prior event rate ratio adjustment: numerical studies of a statistical method to address unrecognized confounding in observational studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(Suppl. 2):60–8.
39. Tannen RL, Weiner MG, Xie D. Use of primary care electronic medical record database in drug efficacy research on cardiovascular outcomes: comparison of database and randomised controlled trial findings. BMJ. 2009;338(7691):395–9.
40. Tannen R, Xie D, Wang X, Yu M, Weiner MG. A new “Comparative Effectiveness” assessment strategy using the THIN database: comparison of the cardiac complications of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(1):86–97.
41. Tannen RL, Weiner MG, Xie D. Replicated studies of two randomized trials of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: further empiric validation of the ‘prior event rate ratio’ to adjust for unmeasured confounding by indication. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17(7):671–85.
42. Weiner MG, Xie D, Tannen RL. Replication of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study using a primary care medical record database prompted exploration of a new method to address unmeasured confounding. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17(7):661–70.
43. Uddin MJ, Groenwold RHH, Van Staa TP, De Boer A, Belitser SV, Hoes AW, et al. Performance of prior event rate ratio adjustment method in pharmacoepidemiology: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24(5):468–77.
44. Lipsitch M, Tchetgen E Tchetgen, Cohen T. Negative controls: a tool for detecting confounding and bias in observational studies. Epidemiology. 2010;21(3):383–8.
45. Schuemie MJ, Ryan PB, Dumouchel W, Suchard MA, Madigan D. Interpreting observational studies: why empirical calibration is needed to correct p-values. Stat Med. 2014;33(2):209–18.
46. Jackson LA, Jackson ML, Nelson JC, Neuzil KM, Weiss NS. Evidence of bias in estimates of influenza vaccine effectiveness in seniors. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35(2):337–44.
47. Flanders WD, Klein M, Darrow LA, Strickland MJ, Sarnat SE, Sarnat JA, et al. A method for detection of residual confounding in time-series and other observational studies. Epidemiology. 2011;22(1):59–67.
48. Tchetgen E Tchetgen. The control outcome calibration approach for causal inference with unobserved confounding. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179(5):633–40.
49. Groenwold RHH. Falsification end points for observational studies. JAMA. 2013;309(17):1769–70.
50. Rassen JA, Brookhart MA, Glynn RJ, Mittleman MA, Schneeweiss S. Instrumental variables I: instrumental variables exploit natural variation in nonexperimental data to estimate causal relationships. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(12):1226–32.
51. Chen Y, Briesacher BA. Use of instrumental variable in prescription drug research with observational data: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(6):687–700.
52. Davies NM, Smith GD, Windmeijer F, Martin RM. Issues in the reporting and conduct of instrumental variable studies: a systematic review. Epidemiology. 2013;24(3):363–9.
53. Martens EP, Pestman WR, De Boer A, Belitser SV, Klungel OH. Instrumental variables: application and limitations. Epidemiology. 2006;17(3):260–7.
54. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist’s dream? Epidemiology. 2006;17(4):360–72.
55. Greenland S. An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. Int J Epidemiol. 2000;29(4):722–9.
56. Schneeweiss S, Setoguchi S, Brookhart A, Dormuth C, Wang PS. Risk of death associated with the use of conventional versus atypical antipsychotic drugs among elderly patients. Can Med Assoc J. 2007;176(5):627.
57. Uddin MJ, Groenwold RHH, de Boer A, Belitser S, Roes KCB, Hoes AW, et al. Performance of instrumental variable methods in cohort and nested case–control studies: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23:165–77.
58. Brookhart MA, Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S. Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19(6):537–44.
59. Instrumental Variables (internet). Econometrics Academy (updated 2015; cited 2015 Dec 4). https://sites.google.com/site/econometricsacademy/econometrics-models/instrumental-variables.
60. Lin NX, Logan S, Henley WE. Bias and sensitivity analysis when estimating treatment effects from the cox model with omitted covariates. Biometrics. 2013;69(4):850–60.
61. Groenwold RH, Nelson DB, Nichol KL, Hoes AW, Hak E. Sensitivity analyses to estimate the potential impact of unmeasured confounding in causal research. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(1):107–17.
62. Greenland S. Basic methods for sensitivity analysis of biases. Int J Epidemiol. 1996;25(6):1107–16.
63. Lee WC. Detecting and correcting the bias of unmeasured factors using perturbation analysis: a data-mining approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):18.
64. Vanderweele TJ, Arah OA. Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confounders. Epidemiology. 2011;22(1):42–52.
65. Wen SW, Kramer MS. Uses of ecologic studies in the assessment of intended treatment effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(1):7–12.
66. Morgenstern H. Ecologic studies in epidemiology: concepts, principles, and methods. Annu Rev Public Health. 1995;16:61–81.
67. Groome PA, Mackillop WJ, Naylor CD. Uses of ecologic studies in the assessment of intended treatment effects multiple letters. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(9):903–4.
68. Schneeweiss S. Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;82(2):143–56.
69. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55.
70. Ali MS, Groenwold RH, Belitser SV, Pestman WR, Hoes AW, Roes KC, et al. Reporting of covariate selection and balance assessment in propensity score analysis is suboptimal: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(2):112–21.
71. Stürmer T, Schneeweiss S, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Adjusting effect estimates for unmeasured confounding with validation data using propensity score calibration. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;162(3):279–89.
72. Sturmer T, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Performance of propensity score calibration—a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165(10):1110–8.
73. Lunt M, Glynn RJ, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Stürmer T. Propensity score calibration in the absence of surrogacy. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175(12):1294–302.
74. Collet JP, Schaubel D, Hanley J, Sharpe C, Boivin JF. Controlling confounding when studying large pharmacoepidemiologic databases: a case study of the two-stage sampling design. Epidemiology. 1998;9(3):309–15.
75. Hanley JA, Dendukuri N. Efficient sampling approaches to address confounding in database studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 2009;18(1):81–105.
76. Stürmer T, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Comparison of performance of propensity score calibration (PSC) and multiple imputation (MI) to control for unmeasured confounding using an internal validation study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15:S39–40 (abstract).
77. Faries D, Peng X, Pawaskar M, Price K, Stamey JD, Seaman JW. Evaluating the impact of unmeasured confounding with internal validation data: an example cost evaluation in type 2 diabetes. Value Health. 2013;16(2):259–66.
78. Yao X, Lix L. A flexible method to apply multiple imputation using SAS/IML® studio. SAS Global Forum 2013; Paper 283-2013.
79. Soley-Bori M. Dealing with missing data: key assumptions and methods for applied analysis 2013.
80. Horton NJ, Lipsitz SR. Multiple imputation in practice: comparison of software packages for regression models with missing variables. Am Stat. 2001;55(3):244–54.
81. Miettinen OS. The need for randomization in the study of intended effects. Stat Med. 1983;2(2):267–71.
82. Joseph K, Mehrabadi A, Lisonkova S. Confounding by indication and related concepts. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2014;1(1):1–8.