Cargando…
Use of propensity score matching to create counterfactual group to assess potential HIV prevention interventions
The design of HIV prevention trials in the context of effective HIV preventive methods is a challenge. Alternate designs, including using non-randomised ‘observational control arms’ have been proposed. We used HIV simulated vaccine efficacy trials (SiVETs) to show pitfalls that may arise from using...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8007631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33782485 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86539-x |
_version_ | 1783672531979337728 |
---|---|
author | Abaasa, Andrew Mayanja, Yunia Asiki, Gershim Price, Matt A. Fast, Patricia E. Ruzagira, Eugene Kaleebu, Pontiano Todd, Jim |
author_facet | Abaasa, Andrew Mayanja, Yunia Asiki, Gershim Price, Matt A. Fast, Patricia E. Ruzagira, Eugene Kaleebu, Pontiano Todd, Jim |
author_sort | Abaasa, Andrew |
collection | PubMed |
description | The design of HIV prevention trials in the context of effective HIV preventive methods is a challenge. Alternate designs, including using non-randomised ‘observational control arms’ have been proposed. We used HIV simulated vaccine efficacy trials (SiVETs) to show pitfalls that may arise from using such observational controls and suggest how to conduct the analysis in the face of the pitfalls. Two SiVETs were nested within previously established observational cohorts of fisherfolk (FF) and female sex workers (FSW) in Uganda. SiVET participants received a licensed Hepatitis B vaccine in a schedule (0, 1 and 6 months) similar to that for a possible HIV vaccine efficacy trial. All participants received HIV counselling and testing every quarter for one year to assess HIV incidence rate ratio (IRR) between SiVET and non-SiVET (observational data). Propensity scores, conditional on baseline characteristics were calculated for SiVET participation and matched between SiVET and non-SiVET in the period before and during the SiVET study. We compared IRR before and after propensity score matching (PSM). In total, 3989 participants were enrolled into observational cohorts prior to SiVET, (1575 FF prior to Jul 2012 and 2414 FSW prior to Aug 2014). SiVET enrolled 572 participants (Jul 2012 to Apr 2014 in FF and Aug 2014 to Apr 2017 in FSW), with 953 non-SiVET participants observed in the SiVET concurrent period and 2928 from the pre-SiVET period (before Jul 2012 in FF or before Apr 2014 in FSW). Imbalances in baseline characteristics were observed between SiVET and non-SiVET participants in both periods before PSM. Similarly, HIV incidence was lower in SiVET than non-SiVET; SiVET-concurrent period, IRR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.31–0.68, p = 0.033 and pre-SiVET period, IRR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.43–1.29, p = 0.161. After PSM, participants baseline characteristics were comparable and there were minimal differences in HIV incidence between SiVET and non-SiVET participants. The process of screening for eligibility for efficacy trial selects participants with baseline characteristics different from the source population, confounding any observed differences in HIV incidence. Propensity score matching can be a useful tool to adjust the imbalance in the measured participants’ baseline characteristics creating a counterfactual group to estimate the effect of interventions on HIV incidence. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8007631 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80076312021-03-30 Use of propensity score matching to create counterfactual group to assess potential HIV prevention interventions Abaasa, Andrew Mayanja, Yunia Asiki, Gershim Price, Matt A. Fast, Patricia E. Ruzagira, Eugene Kaleebu, Pontiano Todd, Jim Sci Rep Article The design of HIV prevention trials in the context of effective HIV preventive methods is a challenge. Alternate designs, including using non-randomised ‘observational control arms’ have been proposed. We used HIV simulated vaccine efficacy trials (SiVETs) to show pitfalls that may arise from using such observational controls and suggest how to conduct the analysis in the face of the pitfalls. Two SiVETs were nested within previously established observational cohorts of fisherfolk (FF) and female sex workers (FSW) in Uganda. SiVET participants received a licensed Hepatitis B vaccine in a schedule (0, 1 and 6 months) similar to that for a possible HIV vaccine efficacy trial. All participants received HIV counselling and testing every quarter for one year to assess HIV incidence rate ratio (IRR) between SiVET and non-SiVET (observational data). Propensity scores, conditional on baseline characteristics were calculated for SiVET participation and matched between SiVET and non-SiVET in the period before and during the SiVET study. We compared IRR before and after propensity score matching (PSM). In total, 3989 participants were enrolled into observational cohorts prior to SiVET, (1575 FF prior to Jul 2012 and 2414 FSW prior to Aug 2014). SiVET enrolled 572 participants (Jul 2012 to Apr 2014 in FF and Aug 2014 to Apr 2017 in FSW), with 953 non-SiVET participants observed in the SiVET concurrent period and 2928 from the pre-SiVET period (before Jul 2012 in FF or before Apr 2014 in FSW). Imbalances in baseline characteristics were observed between SiVET and non-SiVET participants in both periods before PSM. Similarly, HIV incidence was lower in SiVET than non-SiVET; SiVET-concurrent period, IRR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.31–0.68, p = 0.033 and pre-SiVET period, IRR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.43–1.29, p = 0.161. After PSM, participants baseline characteristics were comparable and there were minimal differences in HIV incidence between SiVET and non-SiVET participants. The process of screening for eligibility for efficacy trial selects participants with baseline characteristics different from the source population, confounding any observed differences in HIV incidence. Propensity score matching can be a useful tool to adjust the imbalance in the measured participants’ baseline characteristics creating a counterfactual group to estimate the effect of interventions on HIV incidence. Nature Publishing Group UK 2021-03-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8007631/ /pubmed/33782485 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86539-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Abaasa, Andrew Mayanja, Yunia Asiki, Gershim Price, Matt A. Fast, Patricia E. Ruzagira, Eugene Kaleebu, Pontiano Todd, Jim Use of propensity score matching to create counterfactual group to assess potential HIV prevention interventions |
title | Use of propensity score matching to create counterfactual group to assess potential HIV prevention interventions |
title_full | Use of propensity score matching to create counterfactual group to assess potential HIV prevention interventions |
title_fullStr | Use of propensity score matching to create counterfactual group to assess potential HIV prevention interventions |
title_full_unstemmed | Use of propensity score matching to create counterfactual group to assess potential HIV prevention interventions |
title_short | Use of propensity score matching to create counterfactual group to assess potential HIV prevention interventions |
title_sort | use of propensity score matching to create counterfactual group to assess potential hiv prevention interventions |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8007631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33782485 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86539-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT abaasaandrew useofpropensityscorematchingtocreatecounterfactualgrouptoassesspotentialhivpreventioninterventions AT mayanjayunia useofpropensityscorematchingtocreatecounterfactualgrouptoassesspotentialhivpreventioninterventions AT asikigershim useofpropensityscorematchingtocreatecounterfactualgrouptoassesspotentialhivpreventioninterventions AT pricematta useofpropensityscorematchingtocreatecounterfactualgrouptoassesspotentialhivpreventioninterventions AT fastpatriciae useofpropensityscorematchingtocreatecounterfactualgrouptoassesspotentialhivpreventioninterventions AT ruzagiraeugene useofpropensityscorematchingtocreatecounterfactualgrouptoassesspotentialhivpreventioninterventions AT kaleebupontiano useofpropensityscorematchingtocreatecounterfactualgrouptoassesspotentialhivpreventioninterventions AT toddjim useofpropensityscorematchingtocreatecounterfactualgrouptoassesspotentialhivpreventioninterventions |