INTRODUCTION: A large study on the safety of biologics required pooling of data from multiple data sources, but while extensive confounder adjustment was necessary, private, individual-level covariate information could not be shared. OBJECTIVES: To describe the methods of pooling data that investigators considered, and to detail the strengths and limitations of the chosen method: a propensity score (PS)-based approach that allowed for full multivariate adjustment without compromising patient privacy. RESEARCH DESIGN: The project had a central data coordinating center responsible for collection and analysis of data. Private data could not be transmitted to the data coordinating center. Investigators assessed 4 methods for pooled analyses: full covariate sharing, cell-aggregated sharing, meta-analysis, and the PS-based method. We evaluated each method for protection of private information, analytic integrity and flexibility, and ability to meet the study's operational and statistical needs. RESULTS: Analysis of 4 example datasets yielded substantially similar estimates if data were pooled with a PS versus individual covariates (0%-3% difference in point estimates). Several practical challenges arose. (1) PSs are best suited for dichotomous exposures but 6 or more exposure categories were desired; we chose a series of exposure contrasts with a common referent group. (2) Subgroup analyses had to be specified a priori. (3) Time-varying exposures and confounders required appropriate analytic handling including re-estimation of PSs. (4) Detection of heterogeneity among centers was necessary. CONCLUSIONS: The PS-based pooling method offered strong protection of patient privacy and a reasonable balance between analytic integrity and flexibility of study execution. We would recommend its use in other studies that require pooling of databases, multivariate adjustment, and privacy protection.
INTRODUCTION: A large study on the safety of biologics required pooling of data from multiple data sources, but while extensive confounder adjustment was necessary, private, individual-level covariate information could not be shared. OBJECTIVES: To describe the methods of pooling data that investigators considered, and to detail the strengths and limitations of the chosen method: a propensity score (PS)-based approach that allowed for full multivariate adjustment without compromising patient privacy. RESEARCH DESIGN: The project had a central data coordinating center responsible for collection and analysis of data. Private data could not be transmitted to the data coordinating center. Investigators assessed 4 methods for pooled analyses: full covariate sharing, cell-aggregated sharing, meta-analysis, and the PS-based method. We evaluated each method for protection of private information, analytic integrity and flexibility, and ability to meet the study's operational and statistical needs. RESULTS: Analysis of 4 example datasets yielded substantially similar estimates if data were pooled with a PS versus individual covariates (0%-3% difference in point estimates). Several practical challenges arose. (1) PSs are best suited for dichotomous exposures but 6 or more exposure categories were desired; we chose a series of exposure contrasts with a common referent group. (2) Subgroup analyses had to be specified a priori. (3) Time-varying exposures and confounders required appropriate analytic handling including re-estimation of PSs. (4) Detection of heterogeneity among centers was necessary. CONCLUSIONS: The PS-based pooling method offered strong protection of patient privacy and a reasonable balance between analytic integrity and flexibility of study execution. We would recommend its use in other studies that require pooling of databases, multivariate adjustment, and privacy protection.
Authors: Stephanie A Smith-Warner; Donna Spiegelman; John Ritz; Demetrius Albanes; W Lawrence Beeson; Leslie Bernstein; Franco Berrino; Piet A van den Brandt; Julie E Buring; Eunyoung Cho; Graham A Colditz; Aaron R Folsom; Jo L Freudenheim; Edward Giovannucci; R Alexandra Goldbohm; Saxon Graham; Lisa Harnack; Pamela L Horn-Ross; Vittorio Krogh; Michael F Leitzmann; Marjorie L McCullough; Anthony B Miller; Carmen Rodriguez; Thomas E Rohan; Arthur Schatzkin; Roy Shore; Mikko Virtanen; Walter C Willett; Alicja Wolk; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Shumin M Zhang; David J Hunter Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2006-04-19 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Kenneth G Saag; Gim Gee Teng; Nivedita M Patkar; Jeremy Anuntiyo; Catherine Finney; Jeffrey R Curtis; Harold E Paulus; Amy Mudano; Maria Pisu; Mary Elkins-Melton; Ryan Outman; Jeroan J Allison; Maria Suarez Almazor; S Louis Bridges; W Winn Chatham; Marc Hochberg; Catherine MacLean; Ted Mikuls; Larry W Moreland; James O'Dell; Anthony M Turkiewicz; Daniel E Furst Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2008-06-15
Authors: David N Juurlink; Tara Gomes; Dennis T Ko; Paul E Szmitko; Peter C Austin; Jack V Tu; David A Henry; Alex Kopp; Muhammad M Mamdani Journal: CMAJ Date: 2009-01-28 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Suzanne M Cadarette; Joshua J Gagne; Daniel H Solomon; Jeffrey N Katz; Til Stürmer Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Sebastian Schneeweiss; Jeremy A Rassen; Robert J Glynn; Jerry Avorn; Helen Mogun; M Alan Brookhart Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: P Michael Ho; Thomas M Maddox; Li Wang; Stephan D Fihn; Robert L Jesse; Eric D Peterson; John S Rumsfeld Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Carlos G Grijalva; Lang Chen; Elizabeth Delzell; John W Baddley; Timothy Beukelman; Kevin L Winthrop; Marie R Griffin; Lisa J Herrinton; Liyan Liu; Rita Ouellet-Hellstrom; Nivedita M Patkar; Daniel H Solomon; James D Lewis; Fenglong Xie; Kenneth G Saag; Jeffrey R Curtis Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-11-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Catherine R Lesko; Lisa P Jacobson; Keri N Althoff; Alison G Abraham; Stephen J Gange; Richard D Moore; Sharada Modur; Bryan Lau Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Lisa J Herrinton; Jeffrey R Curtis; Lang Chen; Liyan Liu; Elizabeth Delzell; James D Lewis; Daniel H Solomon; Marie R Griffin; Rita Ouellet-Hellstom; Timothy Beukelman; Carlos G Grijalva; Kevin Haynes; Bindee Kuriya; Joyce Lii; Ed Mitchel; Nivedita Patkar; Jeremy Rassen; Kevin L Winthrop; Parivash Nourjah; Kenneth G Saag Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2011-09-15 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Daniel H Solomon; Jeffrey R Curtis; Kenneth G Saag; Joyce Lii; Lang Chen; Leslie R Harrold; Lisa J Herrinton; David J Graham; Mary K Kowal; Bindee Kuriya; Liyan Liu; Marie R Griffin; James D Lewis; Jeremy A Rassen Journal: Am J Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Joshua J Gagne; Shirley V Wang; Jeremy A Rassen; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Lisa J Herrinton; Liyan Liu; Lang Chen; Leslie R Harrold; Marsha A Raebel; Jeffrey R Curtis; Marie R Griffin; Daniel H Solomon; Kenneth G Saag; James D Lewis Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-10-15 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Lisa J Herrinton; Leslie R Harrold; Liyan Liu; Marsha A Raebel; Ananse' Taharka; Kevin L Winthrop; Daniel H Solomon; Jeffrey R Curtis; James D Lewis; Kenneth G Saag Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 2.890