Dataset Information

Direct risk standardisation: a new method for comparing casemix adjusted event rates using complex models.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Comparison of outcomes between populations or centres may be confounded by any casemix differences and standardisation is carried out to avoid this. However, when the casemix adjustment models are large and complex, direct standardisation has been described as "practically impossible", and indirect standardisation may lead to unfair comparisons. We propose a new method of directly standardising for risk rather than standardising for casemix which overcomes these problems.

Methods

Using a casemix model which is the same model as would be used in indirect standardisation, the risk in individuals is estimated. Risk categories are defined, and event rates in each category for each centre to be compared are calculated. A weighted sum of the risk category specific event rates is then calculated. We have illustrated this method using data on 6 million admissions to 146 hospitals in England in 2007/8 and an existing model with over 5000 casemix combinations, and a second dataset of 18,668 adult emergency admissions to 9 centres in the UK and overseas and a published model with over 20,000 casemix combinations and a continuous covariate.

Results

Substantial differences between conventional directly casemix standardised rates and rates from direct risk standardisation (DRS) were found. Results based on DRS were very similar to Standardised Mortality Ratios (SMRs) obtained from indirect standardisation, with similar standard errors.

Conclusions

Direct risk standardisation using our proposed method is as straightforward as using conventional direct or indirect standardisation, always enables fair comparisons of performance to be made, can use continuous casemix covariates, and was found in our examples to have similar standard errors to the SMR. It should be preferred when there is a risk that conventional direct or indirect standardisation will lead to unfair comparisons.

SUBMITTER: Nicholl J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3870993 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Early observations from countries that have introduced rotavirus vaccination suggest that there may be indirect protection for unvaccinated individuals, but it is unclear whether these benefits will extend to the long term. Transmission dynamic models have attempted to quantify the indirect protection that might be expected from rotavirus vaccination in developed countries, but results have varied. To better understand the magnitude and sources of variability in model projections, we undertook a comparative analysis of transmission dynamic models for rotavirus. We fit five models to reported rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) data from England and Wales, and evaluated outcomes for short- and long-term vaccination effects. All of our models reproduced the important features of rotavirus epidemics in England and Wales. Models predicted that during the initial year after vaccine introduction, incidence of severe RVGE would be reduced 1.8-2.9 times more than expected from the direct effects of the vaccine alone (28-50% at 90% coverage), but over a 5-year period following vaccine introduction severe RVGE would be reduced only by 1.1-1.7 times more than expected from the direct effects (54-90% at 90% coverage). Projections for the long-term reduction of severe RVGE ranged from a 55% reduction at full coverage to elimination with at least 80% coverage. Our models predicted short-term reductions in the incidence of RVGE that exceeded estimates of the direct effects, consistent with observations from the United States and other countries. Some of the models predicted that the short-term indirect benefits may be offset by a partial shifting of the burden of RVGE to older unvaccinated individuals. Nonetheless, even when such a shift occurs, the overall reduction in severe RVGE is considerable. Discrepancies among model predictions reflect uncertainties about age variation in the risk and reporting of RVGE, and the duration of natural and vaccine-induced immunity, highlighting important questions for future research.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a serious and relatively common clinical condition. Lack of consensus on defining and staging TRD remains one of the main barriers to understanding TRD and approaches to intervention. The Maudsley Staging Method (MSM) is the first multidimensional model developed to define and stage treatment-resistance in "unipolar depression". The model is being used increasingly in treatment and epidemiological studies of TRD and has the potential to support consensus. Yet, standardised methods for rating the MSM have not been described adequately. The aim of this report is to present standardised approaches for rating or completing the MSM. METHOD:Based on the initial development of the MSM and a narrative review of the literature, the developers of the MSM provide explicit guidance on how the three dimensions of the MSM--treatment failure, severity of depressive episode and duration of depressive episode-- may be rated. RESULT:The core dimension of the MSM, treatment failure, may be assessed using the Maudsley Treatment Inventory (MTI), a new method developed for the purposes of completing the MSM. The MTI consists of a relatively comprehensive list of medications with options for rating doses and provisions treatment for multiple episodes. The second dimension, severity of symptoms, may be assessed using simple instruments such as the Clinical Global Impression, the Psychiatric Status Rating or checklist from a standard diagnostic checklist. The standardisation also provides a simple rating scale for scoring the third dimension, duration of depressive episode. CONCLUSION:The approaches provided should have clinical and research utility in staging TRD. However, in proposing this model, we are fully cognisant that until the pathophysiology of depression is better understood, staging methods can only be tentative approximations. Future developments should attempt to incorporate other biological/ pathophysiological dimensions for staging.

Project description:IntroductionLebrikizumab and dupilumab are monoclonal antibodies approved for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). Both have demonstrated efficacy and safety over the 16-week SOLOs and ADvocate trials. However, AD is a chronic and relapsing inflammatory disease, and the long-term maintenance of efficacy is critical for achieving disease control from the perspective of patients, physicians, and regulatory agencies. This study aims to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) and dupilumab every week or every 2 weeks (QW/Q2W) among adult patients who have achieved treatment efficacy following the induction period of 16 weeks.MethodsLebrikizumab's efficacy was assessed using individual patient data (IPD) from the ADvocate 1 and 2 monotherapy trials. Dupilumab's efficacy was evaluated using aggregate data from the adult-exclusive SOLO-CONTINUE trial. Due to the absence of a common comparator trial arm, we employed an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), a robust methodology widely accepted by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. This re-weights ADvocate IPD to align with SOLO-CONTINUE's prognostic factors and effect modifiers. We compared lebrikizumab's adjusted outcomes with dupilumab outcomes at week 52, focusing on 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index from baseline (EASI-75), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1, and overall adverse event (AE) rates. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test various combinations of matching variables.ResultsAdults on lebrikizumab Q4W were more likely to maintain IGA 0/1 through the 36-week maintenance period (weeks 16-52) compared with those on dupilumab QW/Q2W [risk ratio (RR) 1.334; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.74; p = 0.035]. Both treatments demonstrated comparable efficacy in terms of EASI-75 maintenance (RR 0.937; 95% CI 0.78-1.13; p = 0.490) and similar AE rates (RR 1.052; 95% CI 0.90-1.23; p = 0.526). Sensitivity analyses substantiated these findings.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that lebrikizumab Q4W may provide equal or superior long-term maintenance of efficacy measured with EASI-75 and IGA 0/1 compared with dupilumab QW/Q2W, with the advantage of requiring less frequent doses.