OBJECTIVES: To determine whether adjustment for prognostic indices specifically developed for nursing home (NH) populations affect the magnitude of previously observed associations between mortality and conventional and atypical antipsychotics. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: A merged data set of Medicaid, Medicare, Minimum Data Set (MDS), Online Survey Certification and Reporting system, and National Death Index for 2001 to 2005. PARTICIPANTS: Dual-eligible individuals aged 65 and older who initiated antipsychotic treatment in a NH (N=75,445). MEASUREMENTS: Three mortality risk scores (Mortality Risk Index Score, Revised MDS Mortality Risk Index, Advanced Dementia Prognostic Tool) were derived for each participant using baseline MDS data, and their performance was assessed using c-statistics and goodness-of-fit tests. The effect of adjusting for these indices in addition to propensity scores (PSs) on the association between antipsychotic medication and mortality was evaluated using Cox models with and without adjustment for risk scores. RESULTS: Each risk score showed moderate discrimination for 6-month mortality, with c-statistics ranging from 0.61 to 0.63. There was no evidence of lack of fit. Imbalances in risk scores between conventional and atypical antipsychotic users, suggesting potential confounding, were much lower within PS deciles than the imbalances in the full cohort. Accounting for each score in the Cox model did not change the relative risk estimates: 2.24 with PS-only adjustment versus 2.20, 2.20, and 2.22 after further adjustment for the three risk scores. CONCLUSION: Although causality cannot be proven based on nonrandomized studies, this study adds to the body of evidence rejecting explanations other than causality for the greater mortality risk associated with conventional antipsychotics than with atypical antipsychotics.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether adjustment for prognostic indices specifically developed for nursing home (NH) populations affect the magnitude of previously observed associations between mortality and conventional and atypical antipsychotics. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: A merged data set of Medicaid, Medicare, Minimum Data Set (MDS), Online Survey Certification and Reporting system, and National Death Index for 2001 to 2005. PARTICIPANTS: Dual-eligible individuals aged 65 and older who initiated antipsychotic treatment in a NH (N=75,445). MEASUREMENTS: Three mortality risk scores (Mortality Risk Index Score, Revised MDS Mortality Risk Index, Advanced Dementia Prognostic Tool) were derived for each participant using baseline MDS data, and their performance was assessed using c-statistics and goodness-of-fit tests. The effect of adjusting for these indices in addition to propensity scores (PSs) on the association between antipsychotic medication and mortality was evaluated using Cox models with and without adjustment for risk scores. RESULTS: Each risk score showed moderate discrimination for 6-month mortality, with c-statistics ranging from 0.61 to 0.63. There was no evidence of lack of fit. Imbalances in risk scores between conventional and atypical antipsychotic users, suggesting potential confounding, were much lower within PS deciles than the imbalances in the full cohort. Accounting for each score in the Cox model did not change the relative risk estimates: 2.24 with PS-only adjustment versus 2.20, 2.20, and 2.22 after further adjustment for the three risk scores. CONCLUSION: Although causality cannot be proven based on nonrandomized studies, this study adds to the body of evidence rejecting explanations other than causality for the greater mortality risk associated with conventional antipsychotics than with atypical antipsychotics.
Authors: Krista F Huybrechts; M Alan Brookhart; Kenneth J Rothman; Rebecca A Silliman; Tobias Gerhard; Stephen Crystal; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Andrea D Foebel; Rosa Liperoti; Graziano Onder; Harriet Finne-Soveri; Jean Claude Henrard; Albert Lukas; Michael D Denkinger; Giovanni Gambassi; Roberto Bernabei Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 4.669
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: Paula A Rochon; Therese A Stukel; Susan E Bronskill; Tara Gomes; Kathy Sykora; Walter P Wodchis; Michael Hillmer; Alexander Kopp; Jerry H Gurwitz; Geoffrey M Anderson Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-04-09
Authors: Sudeep S Gill; Susan E Bronskill; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Geoffrey M Anderson; Kathy Sykora; Kelvin Lam; Chaim M Bell; Philip E Lee; Hadas D Fischer; Nathan Herrmann; Jerry H Gurwitz; Paula A Rochon Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-06-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Stephen E Gordon; Alyssa B Dufour; Sara M Monti; Melissa L P Mattison; Angela G Catic; Cindy P Thomas; Lewis A Lipsitz Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Inken Arnold; Kati Straube; Wolfgang Himmel; Stephanie Heinemann; Vivien Weiss; Laura Heyden; Eva Hummers-Pradier; Roland Nau Journal: BMC Pharmacol Toxicol Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: Yoonyoung Park; Brian T Bateman; Dae Hyun Kim; Sonia Hernandez-Diaz; Elisabetta Patorno; Robert J Glynn; Helen Mogun; Krista F Huybrechts Journal: BMJ Date: 2018-03-28
Authors: Daniel Puente-Fernández; Concepción B Roldán-López; Concepción P Campos-Calderón; Cesar Hueso-Montoro; María P García-Caro; Rafael Montoya-Juarez Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Yanting Guo; Gang Zheng; Tianyun Fu; Xuefeng Bruce Ling; Shiying Hao; Chengyin Ye; Le Zheng; Modi Liu; Minjie Xia; Bo Jin; Chunqing Zhu; Oliver Wang; Qian Wu; Devore S Culver; Shaun T Alfreds; Frank Stearns; Laura Kanov; Ajay Bhatia; Karl G Sylvester; Eric Widen; Doff B McElhinney Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 5.428