Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

An evaluation of exact matching and propensity score methods as applied in a comparative effectiveness study of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma.
Pragmat Obs Res. 2017; 8:15-30.PO

Abstract

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.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd, Singapore.University Paris Descartes (EA2511), Cochin Hospital Group (AP-HP), Paris, France.Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd, Singapore.Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd, Singapore.Department of Pulmonology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen.PHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research, Utrech, the Netherlands.PHARMO Institute for Drug Outcomes Research, Utrech, the Netherlands.Takeda Development Centre Europe Ltd, London, UK.Takeda Pharmaceuticals International GmbH, Zurich, Switzerland.Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd, Singapore; Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

28356782

Citation

Burden, Anne, et al. "An Evaluation of Exact Matching and Propensity Score Methods as Applied in a Comparative Effectiveness Study of Inhaled Corticosteroids in Asthma." Pragmatic and Observational Research, vol. 8, 2017, pp. 15-30.
Burden A, Roche N, Miglio C, et al. An evaluation of exact matching and propensity score methods as applied in a comparative effectiveness study of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma. Pragmatic and observational research. 2017;8:15-30.
Burden, A., Roche, N., Miglio, C., Hillyer, E. V., Postma, D. S., Herings, R. M., Overbeek, J. A., Khalid, J. M., van Eickels, D., & Price, D. B. (2017). An evaluation of exact matching and propensity score methods as applied in a comparative effectiveness study of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma. Pragmatic and Observational Research, 8, 15-30. https://doi.org/10.2147/POR.S122563
Burden A, et al. An Evaluation of Exact Matching and Propensity Score Methods as Applied in a Comparative Effectiveness Study of Inhaled Corticosteroids in Asthma. Pragmatic and observational research. 2017;8:15-30. PubMed PMID: 28356782.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - An evaluation of exact matching and propensity score methods as applied in a comparative effectiveness study of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma. AU - Burden,Anne, AU - Roche,Nicolas, AU - Miglio,Cristiana, AU - Hillyer,Elizabeth V, AU - Postma,Dirkje S, AU - Herings,Ron Mc, AU - Overbeek,Jetty A, AU - Khalid,Javaria Mona, AU - van Eickels,Daniela, AU - Price,David B, Y1 - 2017/03/22/ PY - 2017/3/31/entrez PY - 2017/3/31/pubmed PY - 2017/3/31/medline KW - asthma KW - exact matching KW - observational KW - propensity score SP - 15 EP - 30 JF - Pragmatic and observational research VL - 8 N2 - 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. SN - 1179-7266 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/28356782/An_evaluation_of_exact_matching_and_propensity_score_methods_as_applied_in_a_comparative_effectiveness_study_of_inhaled_corticosteroids_in_asthma_ L2 - https://dx.doi.org/10.2147/POR.S122563 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -
Try the Free App:
Prime PubMed app for iOS iPhone iPad
Prime PubMed app for Android
Prime PubMed is provided
free to individuals by:
Unbound Medicine.