Wayne A Ray1, Qi Liu, Bryan E Shepherd. 1. Department of Health Policy (WAR), Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pharmacoepidemiologic studies of acute effects of episodic exposures often must control for many time-dependent confounders. Marginal structural models permit this and provide unbiased estimates when confounders are on the causal pathway. However, if causal pathway confounding is minimal, analyses with time-dependent propensity scores, calculated for time periods defined by individual drug prescriptions, may have better efficiency. We justify time-dependent propensity scores and compare the performance of these methods in a case study from a previous investigation of the risk of medication toxicity death in current users of propoxyphene and hydrocodone, with both substantial time-dependent confounding and a large number of covariates. METHODS: The cohort included Tennessee Medicaid enrollees who filled a qualifying study opioid prescription between 1992 and 2007. We identified 22 time-dependent covariates that accounted for most of the confounding in the original study. We compared analyses with all covariates in the regression model with those based on time-dependent propensity scores and those from marginal structural models. RESULTS: We identified 489,008 persons with 1,771,295 propoxyphene and 4,088,754 hydrocodone prescriptions. The unadjusted hazard ratio (propoxyphene : hydrocodone) was 0.70 (95%CI, 0.46-1.07). Estimates from inclusion of all covariates in the model, time-dependent propensity score analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting, and marginal structural models were 1.63 (1.04-2.57), 1.65 (1.01-2.72), and 1.64 (0.83-3.27), respectively. Findings varied little with use of alternative propensity score methods, time origin, or techniques for marginal structural model estimation. CONCLUSIONS: Time-dependent propensity scores may be useful for pharmacoepidemiologic studies with time-varying exposures when causal pathway confounding is limited.
PURPOSE: Pharmacoepidemiologic studies of acute effects of episodic exposures often must control for many time-dependent confounders. Marginal structural models permit this and provide unbiased estimates when confounders are on the causal pathway. However, if causal pathway confounding is minimal, analyses with time-dependent propensity scores, calculated for time periods defined by individual drug prescriptions, may have better efficiency. We justify time-dependent propensity scores and compare the performance of these methods in a case study from a previous investigation of the risk of medication toxicity death in current users of propoxyphene and hydrocodone, with both substantial time-dependent confounding and a large number of covariates. METHODS: The cohort included Tennessee Medicaid enrollees who filled a qualifying study opioid prescription between 1992 and 2007. We identified 22 time-dependent covariates that accounted for most of the confounding in the original study. We compared analyses with all covariates in the regression model with those based on time-dependent propensity scores and those from marginal structural models. RESULTS: We identified 489,008 persons with 1,771,295 propoxyphene and 4,088,754 hydrocodone prescriptions. The unadjusted hazard ratio (propoxyphene : hydrocodone) was 0.70 (95%CI, 0.46-1.07). Estimates from inclusion of all covariates in the model, time-dependent propensity score analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting, and marginal structural models were 1.63 (1.04-2.57), 1.65 (1.01-2.72), and 1.64 (0.83-3.27), respectively. Findings varied little with use of alternative propensity score methods, time origin, or techniques for marginal structural model estimation. CONCLUSIONS: Time-dependent propensity scores may be useful for pharmacoepidemiologic studies with time-varying exposures when causal pathway confounding is limited.
Authors: M Sanni Ali; Rolf H H Groenwold; Wiebe R Pestman; Svetlana V Belitser; Arno W Hoes; A de Boer; Olaf H Klungel Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Daniel Westreich; Stephen R Cole; Phyllis C Tien; Joan S Chmiel; Lawrence Kingsley; Michele Jonsson Funk; Kathryn Anastos; Lisa P Jacobson Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2010-02-05 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Cecilia P Chung; Stephen Todd Callahan; William O Cooper; William D Dupont; Katherine T Murray; Andrew D Franklin; Kathi Hall; Judith A Dudley; Charles Michael Stein; Wayne A Ray Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Alessandro Biffi; Joji B Kuramatsu; Audrey Leasure; Hooman Kamel; Christina Kourkoulis; Kristin Schwab; Alison M Ayres; Jordan Elm; M Edip Gurol; Steven M Greenberg; Anand Viswanathan; Christopher D Anderson; Stefan Schwab; Jonathan Rosand; Fernando D Testai; Daniel Woo; Hagen B Huttner; Kevin N Sheth Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Patryk Kubiszewski; Lansing Sugita; Christina Kourkoulis; Zora DiPucchio; Kristin Schwab; Christopher D Anderson; M Edip Gurol; Steven M Greenberg; Anand Viswanathan; Jonathan Rosand; Alessandro Biffi Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2020-08-31 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Joseph Magagnoli; Siddharth Narendran; Felipe Pereira; Tammy H Cummings; James W Hardin; S Scott Sutton; Jayakrishna Ambati Journal: Med (N Y) Date: 2020-06-05
Authors: Wayne A Ray; Cecilia P Chung; Katherine T Murray; Beth A Malow; James R Daugherty; C Michael Stein Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 11.069