Dataset Information

Comparison of statistical approaches dealing with time-dependent confounding in drug effectiveness studies.

ABSTRACT: In longitudinal studies, if the time-dependent covariates are affected by the past treatment, time-dependent confounding may be present. For a time-to-event response, marginal structural Cox models are frequently used to deal with such confounding. To avoid some of the problems of fitting marginal structural Cox model, the sequential Cox approach has been suggested as an alternative. Although the estimation mechanisms are different, both approaches claim to estimate the causal effect of treatment by appropriately adjusting for time-dependent confounding. We carry out simulation studies to assess the suitability of the sequential Cox approach for analyzing time-to-event data in the presence of a time-dependent covariate that may or may not be a time-dependent confounder. Results from these simulations revealed that the sequential Cox approach is not as effective as marginal structural Cox model in addressing the time-dependent confounding. The sequential Cox approach was also found to be inadequate in the presence of a time-dependent covariate. We propose a modified version of the sequential Cox approach that correctly estimates the treatment effect in both of the above scenarios. All approaches are applied to investigate the impact of beta-interferon treatment in delaying disability progression in the British Columbia Multiple Sclerosis cohort (1995-2008).

SUBMITTER: Karim ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5770217 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of statistical approaches dealing with time-dependent confounding in drug effectiveness studies.

Karim Mohammad Ehsanul ME Petkau John J Gustafson Paul P Platt Robert W RW Tremlett Helen H

Statistical methods in medical research 20160921 6

In longitudinal studies, if the time-dependent covariates are affected by the past treatment, time-dependent confounding may be present. For a time-to-event response, marginal structural Cox models are frequently used to deal with such confounding. To avoid some of the problems of fitting marginal structural Cox model, the sequential Cox approach has been suggested as an alternative. Although the estimation mechanisms are different, both approaches claim to estimate the causal effect of treatmen ...[more]

PMID: 27659168

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUsing observational data to assess the relative effectiveness of alternative cancer treatments is limited by patient selection into treatment, which often biases interpretation of outcomes. We evaluated methods for addressing confounding in treatment and survival of patients with early-stage prostate cancer in observational data and compared findings with those from a benchmark randomized clinical trial.MethodsWe selected 14 302 early-stage prostate cancer patients who were aged 66-74 years and had been treated with radical prostatectomy or conservative management from linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2003. Eligibility criteria were similar to those from a clinical trial used to benchmark our analyses. Survival was measured through December 31, 2007, by use of Cox proportional hazards models. We compared results from the benchmark trial with results from models with observational data by use of traditional multivariable survival analysis, propensity score adjustment, and instrumental variable analysis.ResultsProstate cancer patients receiving conservative management were more likely to be older, nonwhite, and single and to have more advanced disease than patients receiving radical prostatectomy. In a multivariable survival analysis, conservative management was associated with greater risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27 to 2.00) and all-cause mortality (HR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.35 to 1.59) than radical prostatectomy. Propensity score adjustments resulted in similar patient characteristics across treatment groups, although survival results were similar to traditional multivariable survival analyses. Results for the same comparison from the instrumental variable approach, which theoretically equalizes both observed and unobserved patient characteristics across treatment groups, differed from the traditional multivariable and propensity score results but were consistent with findings from the subset of elderly patient with early-stage disease in the trial (ie, conservative management vs radical prostatectomy: for prostate cancer-specific mortality, HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.08 to 6.73; for all-cause mortality, HR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.46 to 2.59).ConclusionInstrumental variable analysis may be a useful technique in comparative effectiveness studies of cancer treatments if an acceptable instrument can be identified.

Project description:BackgroundThe Interrupted Time Series (ITS) is a robust design for evaluating public health and policy interventions or exposures when randomisation may be infeasible. Several statistical methods are available for the analysis and meta-analysis of ITS studies. We sought to empirically compare available methods when applied to real-world ITS data.MethodsWe sourced ITS data from published meta-analyses to create an online data repository. Each dataset was re-analysed using two ITS estimation methods. The level- and slope-change effect estimates (and standard errors) were calculated and combined using fixed-effect and four random-effects meta-analysis methods. We examined differences in meta-analytic level- and slope-change estimates, their 95% confidence intervals, p-values, and estimates of heterogeneity across the statistical methods.ResultsOf 40 eligible meta-analyses, data from 17 meta-analyses including 282 ITS studies were obtained (predominantly investigating the effects of public health interruptions (88%)) and analysed. We found that on average, the meta-analytic effect estimates, their standard errors and between-study variances were not sensitive to meta-analysis method choice, irrespective of the ITS analysis method. However, across ITS analysis methods, for any given meta-analysis, there could be small to moderate differences in meta-analytic effect estimates, and important differences in the meta-analytic standard errors. Furthermore, the confidence interval widths and p-values for the meta-analytic effect estimates varied depending on the choice of confidence interval method and ITS analysis method.ConclusionsOur empirical study showed that meta-analysis effect estimates, their standard errors, confidence interval widths and p-values can be affected by statistical method choice. These differences may importantly impact interpretations and conclusions of a meta-analysis and suggest that the statistical methods are not interchangeable in practice.

Dataset Information

Comparison of statistical approaches dealing with time-dependent confounding in drug effectiveness studies.

Publications

Comparison of statistical approaches dealing with time-dependent confounding in drug effectiveness studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets