Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Am J Epidemiol. 2018 Nov 1;187(11):2439-2448. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwy130.

Extension of Disease Risk Score-Based Confounding Adjustments for Multiple Outcomes of Interest: An Empirical Evaluation.

Author information

1
Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
2
Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
3
Office of Biostatistics, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
4
Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Abstract

Use of disease risk score (DRS)-based confounding adjustment when estimating treatment effects on multiple outcomes is not well studied. We designed an empirical cohort study to compare dabigatran initiators and warfarin initiators with respect to risks of ischemic stroke and major bleeding in 12 sequential monitoring periods (90 days each), using data from the Truven Marketscan database (Truven Health Analytics, Ann Arbor, Michigan). We implemented 2 approaches to combine DRS for multiple outcomes: 1) 1:1 matching on prognostic propensity scores (PPS), created using DRS for bleeding and stroke as independent variables in a propensity score (PS) model; and 2) simultaneous 1:1 matching on DRS for bleeding and stroke using Mahalanobis distance (M-distance), and compared their performance with that of traditional PS matching. M-distance matching appeared to produce more stable results in the early marketing period than both PPS and traditional PS matching; hazard ratios from unadjusted analysis, traditional PS matching, PPS matching, and M-distance matching after 4 periods were 0.72 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51, 1.03), 0.61 (95% CI: 0.31, 1.09), 0.55 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.91), and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.45, 1.34), respectively, for stroke and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.80), 0.78 (95% CI: 0.60, 1.01), 0.75 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.96), and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.95), respectively, for bleeding. In later periods, estimates were similar for traditional PS matching and M-distance matching but suggested potential residual confounding with PPS matching. These results suggest that M-distance matching may be a valid approach for extension of DRS-based confounding adjustments for multiple outcomes of interest.

PMID:
29947726
DOI:
10.1093/aje/kwy130

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
Loading ...
Support Center