Shirley V Wang1, Joshua J Gagne, Robert J Glynn, Sebastian Schneeweiss. 1. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham & Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02120, USA. swang27@partners.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-controlled analysis methods implicitly adjust for time-invariant confounding within individuals. A person's prognosis often varies over time and affects both therapy choice and subsequent health outcomes. Current approaches may not be able to fully address this within-person confounding. We evaluated the potential impact of time-varying prognosis in self-controlled studies of treatment effects and the extent to which alternative adjustment strategies could mitigate these biases. METHODS: We used Medicare data linked to prescription drug data from a pharmaceutical assistance program to conduct case-crossover studies of the relationship between intermittent use of five classes of preventive medications (statins, oral hypoglycemics, antihypertensives, osteoporosis, and glaucoma medications) and death-relationships that are strongly biased because of healthy-user and sick-stopper effects. We used the case-case time-control design to adjust for confounding from exposure trends related to prognosis. Each class of medications was evaluated separately, with the remaining four used as reference drugs to estimate prognosis-related exposure trends. RESULTS: The case-crossover odds ratios were 0.39, 0.38, 0.40, 0.39, and 0.45 for statin, antihypertensive, glaucoma, hypoglycemic, and osteoporosis drugs, respectively. After adjusting for the estimated noncausal prognosis-related trends in drug exposure among all eligible cases, odds ratios were clustered closer to null (0.99, 0.95, 1.02, 0.99, and 1.16, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of the sociology of medication use leading to health outcomes is essential in designing and analyzing self-controlled studies of treatment effects. Although the case-case time-control design was able to reduce bias from prognosis-related exposure trends in our examples, the difficulty in identifying appropriate reference exposures could be prohibitive.
BACKGROUND: Self-controlled analysis methods implicitly adjust for time-invariant confounding within individuals. A person's prognosis often varies over time and affects both therapy choice and subsequent health outcomes. Current approaches may not be able to fully address this within-person confounding. We evaluated the potential impact of time-varying prognosis in self-controlled studies of treatment effects and the extent to which alternative adjustment strategies could mitigate these biases. METHODS: We used Medicare data linked to prescription drug data from a pharmaceutical assistance program to conduct case-crossover studies of the relationship between intermittent use of five classes of preventive medications (statins, oral hypoglycemics, antihypertensives, osteoporosis, and glaucoma medications) and death-relationships that are strongly biased because of healthy-user and sick-stopper effects. We used the case-case time-control design to adjust for confounding from exposure trends related to prognosis. Each class of medications was evaluated separately, with the remaining four used as reference drugs to estimate prognosis-related exposure trends. RESULTS: The case-crossover odds ratios were 0.39, 0.38, 0.40, 0.39, and 0.45 for statin, antihypertensive, glaucoma, hypoglycemic, and osteoporosis drugs, respectively. After adjusting for the estimated noncausal prognosis-related trends in drug exposure among all eligible cases, odds ratios were clustered closer to null (0.99, 0.95, 1.02, 0.99, and 1.16, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of the sociology of medication use leading to health outcomes is essential in designing and analyzing self-controlled studies of treatment effects. Although the case-case time-control design was able to reduce bias from prognosis-related exposure trends in our examples, the difficulty in identifying appropriate reference exposures could be prohibitive.
Authors: Philip S Wang; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Soko Setoguchi; Amanda Patrick; Jerry Avorn; Helen Mogun; Niteesh K Choudhry; M Alan Brookhart Journal: J Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 3.153
Authors: Amanda R Patrick; William H Shrank; Robert J Glynn; Daniel H Solomon; Colin R Dormuth; Jerry Avorn; Suzanne M Cadarette; Helen Mogun; M Alan Brookhart Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-04-22 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Philip S Wang; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Jerry Avorn; Michael A Fischer; Helen Mogun; Daniel H Solomon; M Alan Brookhart Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Huifeng Yun; Fenglong Xie; Randall N Beyl; Lang Chen; James D Lewis; Kenneth G Saag; Jeffrey R Curtis Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Shirley V Wang; Judith C Maro; Elande Baro; Rima Izem; Inna Dashevsky; James R Rogers; Michael Nguyen; Joshua J Gagne; Elisabetta Patorno; Krista F Huybrechts; Jacqueline M Major; Esther Zhou; Megan Reidy; Austin Cosgrove; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Martin Kulldorff Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: M M J Zanders; M P P van Herk-Sukel; P A J Vissers; R M C Herings; H R Haak; L V van de Poll-Franse Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Kevin Y Xu; Ned Presnall; Carrie M Mintz; Jacob T Borodovsky; Nisha R Bhat; Laura J Bierut; Richard A Grucza Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-02-01