Literature DB >> 17960554

Comparing treatment effects after adjustment with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity score methods.

Edwin P Martens1, Anthonius de Boer, Wiebe R Pestman, Svetlana V Belitser, Bruno H Ch Stricker, Olaf H Klungel.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare adjusted effects of drug treatment for hypertension on the risk of stroke from propensity score (PS) methods with a multivariable Cox proportional hazards (Cox PH) regression in an observational study with censored data.
METHODS: From two prospective population-based cohort studies in The Netherlands a selection of subjects was used who either received drug treatment for hypertension (n = 1293) or were untreated 'candidates' for treatment (n = 954). A multivariable Cox PH was performed on the risk of stroke using eight covariates along with three PS methods.
RESULTS: In multivariable Cox PH regression the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for treatment was 0.64 (CI(95%): 0.42, 0.98). After stratification on the PS the HR was 0.58 (CI(95%): 0.38, 0.89). Matching on the PS yielded a HR of 0.49 (CI(95%): 0.27, 0.88), whereas adjustment with a continuous PS gave similar results as Cox regression. When more covariates were added (not possible in multivariable Cox model) a similar reduction in HR was reached by all PS methods. The inclusion of a simulated balanced covariate gave largest changes in HR using the multivariable Cox model and matching on the PS.
CONCLUSIONS: In PS methods in general a larger number of confounders can be used. In this data set matching on the PS is sensitive to small changes in the model, probably because of the small number of events. Stratification, and covariate adjustment, were less sensitive to the inclusion of a non-confounder than multivariable Cox PH regression. Attention should be paid to PS model building and balance checking.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 17960554     DOI: 10.1002/pds.1520

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf        ISSN: 1053-8569            Impact factor:   2.890


  13 in total

1.  Evaluation of different approaches for confounding in nonrandomised observational data: a case-study of antipsychotics treatment.

Authors:  E Sarlon; A Millier; S Aballéa; M Toumi
Journal:  Community Ment Health J       Date:  2014-04-03

Review 2.  Propensity Score: an Alternative Method of Analyzing Treatment Effects.

Authors:  Oliver Kuss; Maria Blettner; Jochen Börgermann
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2016-09-05       Impact factor: 5.594

3.  Low LDL-C levels are associated with risk of mortality in a Chinese cohort study.

Authors:  Jie-Ming Lu; Meng-Yin Wu; Zong-Ming Yang; Yao Zhu; Die Li; Zhe-Bin Yu; Peng Shen; Meng-Ling Tang; Ming-Juan Jin; Hong-Bo Lin; Li-Ming Shui; Kun Chen; Jian-Bing Wang
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 3.633

4.  Impact of treatment against hepatitis C virus on overall survival of naive patients with advanced liver disease.

Authors:  Blaise K Kutala; Jeremie Guedj; Tarik Asselah; Nathalie Boyer; Feryel Mouri; Michelle Martinot-Peignoux; Dominique Valla; Patrick Marcellin; Xavier Duval
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Discovery and validation of a transcriptional signature identifying homologous recombination-deficient breast, endometrial and ovarian cancers.

Authors:  Pierre-Alexandre Just; Marie-Aude Le Frere Belda; Anne-Sophie Bats; Bruno Borghese; Jérôme Alexandre; Guillaume Beinse; Pierre Laurent-Puig; Sebastien Jacques; Meriem Koual; Simon Garinet; Karen Leroy; Nicolas Delanoy; Helene Blons; Claire Gervais; Catherine Durdux; Charles Chapron; François Goldwasser; Benoit Terris; Cecile Badoual; Valerie Taly
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2022-06-25       Impact factor: 9.075

6.  The Role of the Contextual Cohort to Resolve Some Challenges and Limitations of Comparisons in Pharmacoepidemiology.

Authors:  Vicki Osborne; Samantha Lane; Saad A W Shakir
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 5.606

7.  Current awareness: pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

Authors: 
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.890

8.  Bridging differences in outcomes of pharmacoepidemiological studies: design and first results of the PROTECT project.

Authors:  Victoria Abbing-Karahagopian; Xavier Kurz; Frank de Vries; Tjeerd P van Staa; Yolanda Alvarez; Ulrik Hesse; Joerg Hasford; Liset van Dijk; Francisco J de Abajo; John G Weil; Lamiae Grimaldi-Bensouda; Antoine C G Egberts; Robert F Reynolds; Olaf H Klungel
Journal:  Curr Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-05

9.  Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for heart failure: a real-life observational study.

Authors:  Noemi Bruno; Gianfranco Sinagra; Stefania Paolillo; Alice Bonomi; Ugo Corrà; Massimo Piepoli; Fabrizio Veglia; Elisabetta Salvioni; Rocco Lagioia; Marco Metra; Giuseppe Limongelli; Gaia Cattadori; Angela B Scardovi; Valentina Carubelli; Domenico Scrutino; Roberto Badagliacca; Marco Guazzi; Rosa Raimondo; Piero Gentile; Damiano Magrì; Michele Correale; Gianfranco Parati; Federica Re; Mariantonietta Cicoira; Maria Frigerio; Maurizio Bussotti; Carlo Vignati; Fabrizio Oliva; Alessandro Mezzani; Giuseppe Vergaro; Andrea Di Lenarda; Claudio Passino; Susanna Sciomer; Giuseppe Pacileo; Roberto Ricci; Mauro Contini; Anna Apostolo; Pietro Palermo; Massimo Mapelli; Cosimo Carriere; Francesco Clemenza; Simone Binno; Romualdo Belardinelli; Carlo Lombardi; Pasquale Perrone Filardi; Michele Emdin; Piergiuseppe Agostoni
Journal:  ESC Heart Fail       Date:  2018-02-04

10.  Outcome of intra-arterial thrombolysis in patients with diabetes and acute lower limb ischemia: a propensity score adjusted analysis.

Authors:  Talha Butt; Anders Gottsäter; Jan Apelqvist; Gunnar Engström; Stefan Acosta
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 2.300

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.