Article

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: 4.98). 09/2011; 174(9):1089-99. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwr213
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

Full-text

Available from: Stephen Crystal, Dec 31, 2013
0 Followers
 · 
91 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives Instrumental variable (IV) analysis is promising for estimation of therapeutic effects from observational data as it can circumvent unmeasured confounding. However, even if IV assumptions hold, IV analyses will not necessarily provide an estimate closer to the true effect than conventional analyses as this depends on the estimates' bias and variance. We investigated how estimates from standard regression (ordinary least squares [OLS]) and IV (two-stage least squares) regression compare on mean squared error (MSE). Study Design We derived an equation for approximation of the threshold sample size, above which IV estimates have a smaller MSE than OLS estimates. Next, we performed simulations, varying sample size, instrument strength, and level of unmeasured confounding. IV assumptions were fulfilled by design. Results Although biased, OLS estimates were closer on average to the true effect than IV estimates at small sample sizes because of their smaller variance. The threshold sample size above which IV analysis outperforms OLS regression depends on instrument strength and strength of unmeasured confounding but will usually be large given the typical moderate instrument strength in medical research. Conclusion IV methods are of most value in large studies if considerable unmeasured confounding is likely and a strong and plausible instrument is available.
    Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 11/2014; 67(11). DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.05.019 · 5.48 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE To examine the association between sedentary behavior and BP among Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) participants. DESIGN We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the OAI 48-month visit participants whose physical activity was measured using accelerometers. Participants were classified into four quartiles according to the percentage of wear time that was sedentary (<100 activity counts per minute). Users of antihypertensive medications or NSAIDs were excluded. Our main outcomes were systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP) and “elevated BP” defined as BP ≥ 130/85 mm Hg. RESULTS For this study cohort (N = 707), mean BP was 121.4 ± 15.6/74.7 ± 9.5 mm Hg and 33% had elevated BP. SBP had a graded association with increased sedentary time (P for trend = 0.02). The most sedentary quartile had 4.26 mm Hg higher SBP (95% CI, 0.69 – 7.82; p = 0.02) than the least sedentary quartile, adjusting for age, moderate-to-vigorous (MV) physical activity, and other demographic and health factors. The probability of having elevated BP significantly increased in higher sedentary quartiles (P for trend = 0.046). There were no significant findings for DBP. CONCLUSION A strong graded association was demonstrated between sedentary behavior and increased SBP and elevated BP, independent of time spent in MV physical activity. Reducing daily sedentary time may lead to improvement in blood pressure and reduction in cardiovascular risk.
    Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 09/2014; 22(9). DOI:10.1016/j.joca.2014.07.007 · 4.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Observational studies have reported higher mortality among older adults treated with first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) versus second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs). A few studies examined risk for medical events, including stroke, ventricular arrhythmia, venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and hip fracture.
    PLoS ONE 08/2014; 9(8):e105376. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0105376 · 3.53 Impact Factor