Article

One-to-many propensity score matching in cohort studies.

Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety (Impact Factor: 3.17). 05/2012; 21 Suppl 2:69-80. DOI: 10.1002/pds.3263
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Among the large number of cohort studies that employ propensity score matching, most match patients 1:1. Increasing the matching ratio is thought to improve precision but may come with a trade-off with respect to bias.
To evaluate several methods of propensity score matching in cohort studies through simulation and empirical analyses.
We simulated cohorts of 20,000 patients with exposure prevalence of 10%-50%. We simulated five dichotomous and five continuous confounders. We estimated propensity scores and matched using digit-based greedy ("greedy"), pairwise nearest neighbor within a caliper ("nearest neighbor"), and a nearest neighbor approach that sought to balance the scores of the comparison patient above and below that of the treated patient ("balanced nearest neighbor"). We matched at both fixed and variable matching ratios and also evaluated sequential and parallel schemes for the order of formation of 1:n match groups. We then applied this same approach to two cohorts of patients drawn from administrative claims data.
Increasing the match ratio beyond 1:1 generally resulted in somewhat higher bias. It also resulted in lower variance with variable ratio matching but higher variance with fixed. The parallel approach generally resulted in higher mean squared error but lower bias than the sequential approach. Variable ratio, parallel, balanced nearest neighbor matching generally yielded the lowest bias and mean squared error.
1:n matching can be used to increase precision in cohort studies. We recommend a variable ratio, parallel, balanced 1:n, nearest neighbor approach that increases precision over 1:1 matching at a small cost in bias.

3 Followers
 · 
157 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The contemporary practice patterns and role of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) in the treatment of inferior vena cava thrombosis is unknown. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was used to identify patients with a principal discharge diagnosis of inferior vena cava thrombosis (International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification, 453.2) from 2005 to 2011. We compared patients treated with CDT plus anticoagulation with patients treated with anticoagulation alone. We used propensity scores to construct 2 matched groups of 563 patients for comparative outcomes analysis. Among 2674 patients admitted with inferior vena cava thrombosis, 718 (26.9%) underwent CDT. The national CDT utilization rates increased from 16.0% in 2005 to 34.7% in 2011 (P<0.001). Based on the propensity-matched comparison, the inhospital mortality was not significantly different between the CDT and the anticoagulation groups (2.0% versus 1.4%; P=0.49). The rates of pulmonary embolism (12.1% versus 7.8%; P=0.02), intracranial hemorrhage (1.6% versus 0.2%; P=0.03), and acute renal failure (13.9% versus 9.4%; P=0.02) were significantly higher in the CDT group. The CDT group had longer length of stay and higher hospital charges compared with the anticoagulation group. There has been a steady increase in the use of CDT in the treatment of patients with inferior vena cava thrombosis in the United States. This observational study showed no significant difference in mortality between CDT versus anticoagulation alone; however, the bleeding events and resource utilization were higher in the CDT group. Adequately powered randomized controlled trials are needed in this area. © 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.
    Circulation Cardiovascular Interventions 02/2015; 8(2). DOI:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.001882 · 6.98 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are limited data about long-term outcomes for biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BES) versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We sought to compare the two-year efficacy and safety of BES versus EES in AMI patients. A total of 707 consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent PCI with BES (n=171) or EES (n=536) between July 2008 and June 2012 were enrolled in this study. The efficacy endpoint (target vessel failure; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) and the safety endpoint (a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis) at two years were compared in crude and propensity score-matched cohorts. After two years, target vessel failure occurred in 13 patients treated with BES and 49 patients treated with EES (7.6% versus 9.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-2.04; p=0.78). The rates of composite safety endpoint at two years were not different between two groups (BES 7.6% versus EES 10.8%; adjusted HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.47-1.62; p=0.66). The rates of stent thrombosis did not differ between two groups (BES 0.6% versus EES 1.3%; adjusted HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.06-6.20; p=0.69). These findings were substantiated by similar results in the propensity score-matched cohort. In the treatment of patients with AMI, BES showed similar efficacy and safety compared to those of EES for up to two years. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although use of oral anticoagulants (OACs) is increasing, there is a substantial lack of data on how to treat OAC-associated intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). To assess the association of anticoagulation reversal and blood pressure (BP) with hematoma enlargement and the effects of OAC resumption. Retrospective cohort study at 19 German tertiary care centers (2006-2012) including 1176 individuals for analysis of long-term functional outcome, 853 for analysis of hematoma enlargement, and 719 for analysis of OAC resumption. Reversal of anticoagulation during acute phase, systolic BP at 4 hours, and reinitiation of OAC for long-term treatment. Frequency of hematoma enlargement in relation to international normalized ratio (INR) and BP. Incidence analysis of ischemic and hemorrhagic events with or without OAC resumption. Factors associated with favorable (modified Rankin Scale score, 0-3) vs unfavorable functional outcome. Hemorrhage enlargement occurred in 307 of 853 patients (36.0%). Reduced rates of hematoma enlargement were associated with reversal of INR levels <1.3 within 4 hours after admission (43/217 [19.8%]) vs INR of ≥1.3 (264/636 [41.5%]; P < .001) and systolic BP <160 mm Hg at 4 hours (167/504 [33.1%]) vs ≥160 mm Hg (98/187 [52.4%]; P < .001). The combination of INR reversal <1.3 within 4 hours and systolic BP of <160 mm Hg at 4 hours was associated with lower rates of hematoma enlargement (35/193 [18.1%] vs 220/498 [44.2%] not achieving these values; OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19-0.42; P < .001) and lower rates of in-hospital mortality (26/193 [13.5%] vs 103/498 [20.7%]; OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.95; P = .03). OAC was resumed in 172 of 719 survivors (23.9%). OAC resumption showed fewer ischemic complications (OAC: 9/172 [5.2%] vs no OAC: 82/547 [15.0%]; P < .001) and not significantly different hemorrhagic complications (OAC: 14/172 [8.1%] vs no OAC: 36/547 [6.6%]; P = .48). Propensity-matched survival analysis in patients with atrial fibrillation who restarted OAC showed a decreased HR of 0.258 (95% CI, 0.125-0.534; P < .001) for long-term mortality. Functional long-term outcome was unfavorable in 786 of 1083 patients (72.6%). Among patients with OAC-associated ICH, reversal of INR <1.3 within 4 hours and systolic BP <160 mm Hg at 4 hours were associated with lower rates of hematoma enlargement, and resumption of OAC therapy was associated with lower risk of ischemic events. These findings require replication and assessment in prospective studies. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01829581.

Preview

Download
3 Downloads