Cargando…

An evaluation of exact matching and propensity score methods as applied in a comparative effectiveness study of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma

BACKGROUND: Cohort matching and regression modeling are used in observational studies to control for confounding factors when estimating treatment effects. Our objective was to evaluate exact matching and propensity score methods by applying them in a 1-year pre–post historical database study to inv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Burden, Anne, Roche, Nicolas, Miglio, Cristiana, Hillyer, Elizabeth V, Postma, Dirkje S, Herings, Ron MC, Overbeek, Jetty A, Khalid, Javaria Mona, van Eickels, Daniela, Price, David B
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5367458/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28356782
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/POR.S122563
_version_ 1782517776490954752
author Burden, Anne
Roche, Nicolas
Miglio, Cristiana
Hillyer, Elizabeth V
Postma, Dirkje S
Herings, Ron MC
Overbeek, Jetty A
Khalid, Javaria Mona
van Eickels, Daniela
Price, David B
author_facet Burden, Anne
Roche, Nicolas
Miglio, Cristiana
Hillyer, Elizabeth V
Postma, Dirkje S
Herings, Ron MC
Overbeek, Jetty A
Khalid, Javaria Mona
van Eickels, Daniela
Price, David B
author_sort Burden, Anne
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cohort matching and regression modeling are used in observational studies to control for confounding factors when estimating treatment effects. Our objective was to evaluate exact matching and propensity score methods by applying them in a 1-year pre–post historical database study to investigate asthma-related outcomes by treatment. METHODS: We drew on longitudinal medical record data in the PHARMO database for asthma patients prescribed the treatments to be compared (ciclesonide and fine-particle inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]). Propensity score methods that we evaluated were propensity score matching (PSM) using two different algorithms, the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), covariate adjustment using the propensity score, and propensity score stratification. We defined balance, using standardized differences, as differences of <10% between cohorts. RESULTS: Of 4064 eligible patients, 1382 (34%) were prescribed ciclesonide and 2682 (66%) fine-particle ICS. The IPTW and propensity score-based methods retained more patients (96%–100%) than exact matching (90%); exact matching selected less severe patients. Standardized differences were >10% for four variables in the exact-matched dataset and <10% for both PSM algorithms and the weighted pseudo-dataset used in the IPTW method. With all methods, ciclesonide was associated with better 1-year asthma-related outcomes, at one-third the prescribed dose, than fine-particle ICS; results varied slightly by method, but direction and statistical significance remained the same. CONCLUSION: We found that each method has its particular strengths, and we recommend at least two methods be applied for each matched cohort study to evaluate the robustness of the findings. Balance diagnostics should be applied with all methods to check the balance of confounders between treatment cohorts. If exact matching is used, the calculation of a propensity score could be useful to identify variables that require balancing, thereby informing the choice of matching criteria together with clinical considerations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5367458
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53674582017-03-29 An evaluation of exact matching and propensity score methods as applied in a comparative effectiveness study of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma Burden, Anne Roche, Nicolas Miglio, Cristiana Hillyer, Elizabeth V Postma, Dirkje S Herings, Ron MC Overbeek, Jetty A Khalid, Javaria Mona van Eickels, Daniela Price, David B Pragmat Obs Res Original Research BACKGROUND: Cohort matching and regression modeling are used in observational studies to control for confounding factors when estimating treatment effects. Our objective was to evaluate exact matching and propensity score methods by applying them in a 1-year pre–post historical database study to investigate asthma-related outcomes by treatment. METHODS: We drew on longitudinal medical record data in the PHARMO database for asthma patients prescribed the treatments to be compared (ciclesonide and fine-particle inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]). Propensity score methods that we evaluated were propensity score matching (PSM) using two different algorithms, the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), covariate adjustment using the propensity score, and propensity score stratification. We defined balance, using standardized differences, as differences of <10% between cohorts. RESULTS: Of 4064 eligible patients, 1382 (34%) were prescribed ciclesonide and 2682 (66%) fine-particle ICS. The IPTW and propensity score-based methods retained more patients (96%–100%) than exact matching (90%); exact matching selected less severe patients. Standardized differences were >10% for four variables in the exact-matched dataset and <10% for both PSM algorithms and the weighted pseudo-dataset used in the IPTW method. With all methods, ciclesonide was associated with better 1-year asthma-related outcomes, at one-third the prescribed dose, than fine-particle ICS; results varied slightly by method, but direction and statistical significance remained the same. CONCLUSION: We found that each method has its particular strengths, and we recommend at least two methods be applied for each matched cohort study to evaluate the robustness of the findings. Balance diagnostics should be applied with all methods to check the balance of confounders between treatment cohorts. If exact matching is used, the calculation of a propensity score could be useful to identify variables that require balancing, thereby informing the choice of matching criteria together with clinical considerations. Dove Medical Press 2017-03-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5367458/ /pubmed/28356782 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/POR.S122563 Text en © 2017 Burden et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
Burden, Anne
Roche, Nicolas
Miglio, Cristiana
Hillyer, Elizabeth V
Postma, Dirkje S
Herings, Ron MC
Overbeek, Jetty A
Khalid, Javaria Mona
van Eickels, Daniela
Price, David B
An evaluation of exact matching and propensity score methods as applied in a comparative effectiveness study of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma
title An evaluation of exact matching and propensity score methods as applied in a comparative effectiveness study of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma
title_full An evaluation of exact matching and propensity score methods as applied in a comparative effectiveness study of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma
title_fullStr An evaluation of exact matching and propensity score methods as applied in a comparative effectiveness study of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma
title_full_unstemmed An evaluation of exact matching and propensity score methods as applied in a comparative effectiveness study of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma
title_short An evaluation of exact matching and propensity score methods as applied in a comparative effectiveness study of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma
title_sort evaluation of exact matching and propensity score methods as applied in a comparative effectiveness study of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5367458/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28356782
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/POR.S122563
work_keys_str_mv AT burdenanne anevaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT rochenicolas anevaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT migliocristiana anevaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT hillyerelizabethv anevaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT postmadirkjes anevaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT heringsronmc anevaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT overbeekjettya anevaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT khalidjavariamona anevaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT vaneickelsdaniela anevaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT pricedavidb anevaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT burdenanne evaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT rochenicolas evaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT migliocristiana evaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT hillyerelizabethv evaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT postmadirkjes evaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT heringsronmc evaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT overbeekjettya evaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT khalidjavariamona evaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT vaneickelsdaniela evaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma
AT pricedavidb evaluationofexactmatchingandpropensityscoremethodsasappliedinacomparativeeffectivenessstudyofinhaledcorticosteroidsinasthma