Comparing inverse probability of treatment weighting and instrumental variable methods for the evaluation of adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitors after percutaneous coronary intervention

JAMA Cardiology

Volumn 1, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 655-665

  Federspiel, Jerome J ^a,b   Anstrom, Kevin J ^a,c   Xian, Ying ^a   McCoy, Lisa A ^a   Effron, Mark B ^d   Faries, Douglas E ^d   Zettler, Marjorie ^d   Mauri, Laura ^e,f   Yeh, Robert W ^e,g   Peterson, Eric D ^a,h   Wang, Tracy Y ^a,h  

^a DUKE CLINICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d Lilly USA   (United States)

^e HARVARD CLINICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^f BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^g MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^h DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLOPIDOGREL; PRASUGREL; ADENOSINE DIPHOSPHATE; ANTITHROMBOCYTIC AGENT; TICLOPIDINE;

ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME; ADULT; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SCREENING; FEMALE; FRACTURE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEART INFARCTION; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR ADVERSE CARDIAC EVENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PNEUMONIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STENT THROMBOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; AGED; ANALOGS AND DERIVATIVES;

ADENOSINE DIPHOSPHATE; AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PLATELET AGGREGATION INHIBITORS; PRASUGREL HYDROCHLORIDE; TICLOPIDINE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 85018984238     PISSN: 23806583     EISSN: 23806591     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2016.1783     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Lauer MS. Comparative effectiveness research: the view from the NHLBI. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53(12):1084-1086.
2. Drozda JP, Bufalino VJ, Fasules JW, et al. ACC 2009 Advocacy position statement: principles for comparative effectiveness research. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(18):1744-1746.
3. Gunasekara FI, Carter K, Blakely T. Glossary for econometrics and epidemiology. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62(10):858-861.
4. Johnson ML, Crown W, Martin BC, Dormuth CR, Siebert U. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report, part III. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1062-1073.
5. Chin CT, Wang TY, Anstrom KJ, et al. Treatment With Adenosine Diphosphate Receptor Inhibitors–Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) study design: expanding the paradigm of longitudinal observational research. Am Heart J. 2011;162(5):844-851.
6. McClellan M, McNeil BJ, Newhouse JP. Does more intensive treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly reduce mortality? analysis using instrumental variables. JAMA. 1994;272(11): 859-866.
7. Xian Y, Holloway RG, Chan PS, et al. Association between stroke center hospitalization for acute ischemic stroke and mortality. JAMA. 2011;305(4): 373-380.
8. Federspiel JJ, Stearns SC, Sheridan BC, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of a rapidly adopted cardiovascular technology with administrative data: the case of drug-eluting stents for acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J. 2012;164(2):207-214.
9. Venkitachalam L, Lei Y, Magnuson EA, et al; EVENT Registry Investigators. Survival benefit with drug-eluting stents in observational studies: fact or artifact? Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4 (6):587-594.
10. Cain LE, Cole SR, Chmiel JS, Margolick JB, Rinaldo CR Jr, Detels R. Effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy on multiple AIDS-defining illnesses among male HIV seroconverters. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(4):310-315.
11. Stukel TA, Fisher ES, Wennberg DE, Alter DA, Gottlieb DJ, Vermeulen MJ. Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. JAMA. 2007;297(3):278-285.
12. Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Wennberg DE. Long-term outcomes of regional variations in intensity of invasive vs medical management of Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2005;293(11):1329-1337.
13. Johnston SC. Combining ecological and individual variables to reduce confounding by indication: case study: subarachnoid hemorrhage treatment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(12):1236-1241.
14. 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): 268-275.
15. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al; Academic Research Consortium. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation. 2007;115(17):2344-2351.
16. GUSTO Investigators. An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(10):673-682.
17. Prasad V, Jena AB. Prespecified falsification end points: can they validate true observational associations? JAMA. 2013;309(3):241-242.
18. Groenwold RH. Falsification end points for observational studies. JAMA. 2013;309(17): 1769-1770.
19. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Clinical Classifications Software (CCS) for ICD-9-CM. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/ccs/ccs.jsp. Updated June 1, 2015. Accessed November 18, 2015.
20. Terza JV, Basu A, Rathouz PJ. Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: addressing endogeneity in health econometric modeling. J Health Econ. 2008;27(3):531-543.
21. Haukoos JS, Lewis RJ. Advanced statistics: bootstrapping confidence intervals for statistics with “difficult” distributions. Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12(4):360-365.
22. Hirano K, Imbens GW. Estimation of causal effects using propensity score weighting: an application to data on right heart catheterization. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2001;2(3): 259-278.
23. Austin PC. A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score. Stat Med. 2014; 33(6):1057-1069.
24. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28(25):3083-3107.
25. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat. 1985;39(1):33-38.
26. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996;91(434):444-455.
27. Garabedian LF, Chu P, Toh S, Zaslavsky AM, Soumerai SB. Potential bias of instrumental variable analyses for observational comparative effectiveness research. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161 (2):131-138.
28. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al; TRITON-TIMI 38 Investigators. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(20):2001-2015.