Dataset Information

Estimating the causal effects of modifiable, non-genetic factors on Huntington disease progression using propensity score weighting.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Despite being genetically inherited, it is unclear how non-genetic factors (e.g., substance use, employment) might contribute to the progression and severity of Huntington's disease (HD).

Methods

We used propensity score (PS) weighting in a large (n = 2914) longitudinal dataset (Enroll-HD) to examine the impact of education, employment status, and use of tobacco, alcohol, and recreational and therapeutic drugs on HD progression. Each factor was investigated in isolation while controlling for 19 other factors to ensure that groups were balanced at baseline on potential confounders using PS weights. Outcomes were compared several years later using doubly robust models.

Results

Our results highlighted cases where modifiable (non-genetic) factors - namely light and moderate alcohol use and employment - would have been associated with HD progression in models that did not use PS weights to control for baseline imbalances. These associations did not hold once we applied PS weights to balance baseline groups. We also found potential evidence of a protective effect of substance use (primarily marijuana use), and that those who needed antidepressant treatment were likely to progress faster than non-users.

Conclusions

Our study is the first to examine the effect of non-genetic factors on HD using a novel application of PS weighting. We show that previously-reported associated factors - including light and moderate alcohol use - are reduced and no longer significantly linked to HD progression after PS weighting. This indicates the potential value of PS weighting in examining non-genetic factors contributing to HD as well as in addressing the known biases that occur with observational data.

SUBMITTER: Griffin BA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7949328 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFor women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF), the clinical benefit of embryo transfer at the blastocyst stage (Day 5) versus cleavage stage (Day 3) remains controversial. The purpose of this study is to compare the implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and odds of live birth of Day 3 and Day 5 embryo transfer, and more importantly, to address the issue that patients were chosen to receive either transfer protocol due to their underlying clinical characteristics, i.e., confounding by indication.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 9,090 IVF cycles collected by Lee Women's Hospital in Taichung, Taiwan from 1998 to 2014. We utilized the method of propensity score matching to mimic a randomized controlled trial (RCT) where each patient with Day 5 transfer was matched by another patient with Day 3 transfer with respect to other clinical characteristics. Implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and odds of live birth were compared for women underwent Day 5 transfer and Day 3 transfer to estimate the causal effects. We further investigated the causal effects in subgroups by stratifying age and anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH).ResultsOur analyses uncovered an evidence of a significant difference in implantation rate (p=0.04) favoring Day 5 transfer, and showed that Day 3 and Day 5 transfers made no difference in both odds of live birth (p=0.27) and clinical pregnancy rate (p=0.11). With the increase of gestational age, the trend toward non-significance of embryo transfer day in our result appeared to be consistent for subgroups stratified by age and AMH, while all analyses stratified by age and AMH were not statistically significant.ConclusionsWe conclude that for women without strong indications for Day 3 or Day 5 transfer, there is a small significant difference in implantation rate in favor of Day 5 transfer. However, the two protocols have indistinguishable outcomes on odds of live birth and clinical pregnancy rate.