Comparison of Different Approaches to Confounding Adjustment in a Study on the Association of Antipsychotic Medication With Mortality in Older Nursing Home Patients

Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont Street, Suite 3030, Boston, MA 02120, USA.
American journal of epidemiology (Impact Factor: 5.23). 09/2011; 174(9):1089-99. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwr213
Source: PubMed


Selective prescribing of conventional antipsychotic medication (APM) to frailer patients is thought to have led to overestimation of the association with mortality in pharmacoepidemiologic studies relying on claims data. The authors assessed the validity of different analytic techniques to address such confounding. The cohort included 82,012 persons initiating APM use after admission to a nursing home in 45 states with 2001-2005 Medicaid/Medicare data, linked to clinical data (Minimum Data Set) and institutional characteristics. The authors compared the association between APM class and 180-day mortality with multivariate outcome modeling, propensity score (PS) adjustment, and instrumental variables. The unadjusted risk difference (per 100 patients) of 10.6 (95% confidence interval (CI): 9.4, 11.7) comparing use of conventional medication with atypical APM was reduced to 7.8 (95% CI: 6.6, 9.0) and 7.0 (95% CI: 5.8, 8.2) after PS adjustment and high-dimensional PS (hdPS) adjustment, respectively. Results were similar in analyses limited to claims-based Medicaid /Medicare variables (risk difference = 8.2 for PS, 7.1 for hdPS). Instrumental-variable estimates were imprecise (risk difference = 8.8, 95% CI: -1.3, 19.0) because of the weak instrument. These results suggest that residual confounding has a relatively small impact on the effect estimate and that hdPS methods based on claims alone provide estimates at least as good as those from conventional analyses using claims enriched with clinical information.

Download full-text


Available from: Stephen Crystal, Dec 31, 2013
31 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess risks of mortality associated with use of individual antipsychotic drugs in elderly residents in nursing homes. Population based cohort study with linked data from Medicaid, Medicare, the Minimum Data Set, the National Death Index, and a national assessment of nursing home quality. Nursing homes in the United States. 75,445 new users of antipsychotic drugs (haloperidol, aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, ziprasidone). All participants were aged ≥ 65, were eligible for Medicaid, and lived in a nursing home in 2001-5. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare 180 day risks of all cause and cause specific mortality by individual drug, with propensity score adjustment to control for potential confounders. Compared with risperidone, users of haloperidol had an increased risk of mortality (hazard ratio 2.07, 95% confidence interval 1.89 to 2.26) and users of quetiapine a decreased risk (0.81, 0.75 to 0.88). The effects were strongest shortly after the start of treatment, remained after adjustment for dose, and were seen for all causes of death examined. No clinically meaningful differences were observed for the other drugs. There was no evidence that the effect measure modification in those with dementia or behavioural disturbances. There was a dose-response relation for all drugs except quetiapine. Though these findings cannot prove causality, and we cannot rule out the possibility of residual confounding, they provide more evidence of the risk of using these drugs in older patients, reinforcing the concept that they should not be used in the absence of clear need. The data suggest that the risk of mortality with these drugs is generally increased with higher doses and seems to be highest for haloperidol and least for quetiapine.
    BMJ (online) 02/2012; 344(feb23 2):e977. DOI:10.1136/bmj.e977 · 17.45 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: This study examines the short- and long-term effects of a multidisciplinary preventive program on perceived work ability in a population with no severe medical problems. METHODS: Altogether 859 public sector employees who participated in the program in 1997-2005 and their 2426 propensity-score-matched controls were studied prospectively. Propensity scores for probability of being granted participation in the program were calculated based on the data on health, health-risk behaviors, and work-related characteristics that were gathered from repeat responses to a survey, national health registers, and employers' records. Mean scores of perceived work ability (PWA) and prevalence ratios (PR) of suboptimal PWA were calculated after a short-term (mean 1.7 years, up to 4.6 years) and a long-term (mean 5.8 years, up to 9.2 years) follow-up. RESULTS: No beneficial effects were observed with respect to work ability. In comparison to controls, the participants' risk of suboptimal PWA was actually slightly higher after both the short-term [PR 1.23, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.10-1.39] and long-term (PR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06-1.31) follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the vocationally oriented multidisciplinary preventive program was ineffective in improving work ability among participants with no severe medical problems.
    Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 04/2012; 39(1). DOI:10.5271/sjweh.3298 · 3.45 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: : Instrumental variables can be used to estimate the causal effects of exposures on outcomes in the presence of residual or uncontrolled confounding. To assess the validity of analyses using instrumental variables, specific information about whether underlying assumptions are met must be presented, in particular to demonstrate that the instrument is associated with the exposure but not with measured confounding factors. We systematically reviewed the epidemiological literature in Embase and Medline for articles containing the term "instrumental variable$" to investigate whether reporting of test statistics in studies using instrumental variables was sufficient to assess the validity of the results. We extracted the information each study reported about their instrumental variables, including specification tests used to check assumptions. The search found 756 studies of which 90 were relevant and were included. Only 25 (28%) studies reported appropriate tests of the strength of the associations between instruments and exposure. Forty-four (49%) studies reported associations between the instrumental variables and observed covariates. Studies using instrumental variables had wide confidence intervals and so effect estimates were imprecise. We propose a checklist of information and specification tests that studies using instrumental variables should report.
    Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 03/2013; 24(3). DOI:10.1097/EDE.0b013e31828abafb · 6.20 Impact Factor
Show more