Problem drinking as a risk factor for tuberculosis: a propensity score matched analysis of a national survey

BMC Public Health

Rodney Ehrlich¹  Annibale Cois¹ 

[1] School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Anzio Road, Observatory 7925, Cape Town, South Africa

关键词: Sensitivity analysis;    Propensity score;    Multiple confounders;    Problem drinking;    Alcohol;    Tuberculosis;   

Others  :  1161751
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-871

 received in 2013-04-29, accepted in 2013-09-10,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Epidemiological and other evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that problem drinking is causally related to the incidence of active tuberculosis and the worsening of the disease course. The presence of a large number of potential confounders, however, complicates the assessment of the actual size of this causal effect, leaving room for a substantial amount of bias. This study aims to contribute to the understanding of the role of confounding in the observed association between problem drinking and tuberculosis, assessing the effect of the adjustment for a relatively large number of potential confounders on the estimated prevalence odds ratio of tuberculosis among problem drinkers vs. moderate drinkers/abstainers in a cross-sectional, nationally representative sample of the South African adult population.

Methods

A propensity score approach was used to match each problem drinker in the sample with a subset of moderate drinkers/abstainers with similar characteristics in respect to a set of potential confounders. The prevalence odds ratio of tuberculosis between the matched groups was then calculated using conditional logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results in respect to misspecification of the model.

Results

The prevalence odds ratio of tuberculosis between problem drinkers and moderate drinkers/abstainers was 1.97 (95% CI: 1.40 to 2.77), and the result was robust with respect to the matching procedure as well as to incorrect adjustment for potential mediators and to the possible presence of unmeasured confounders. Sub-population analysis did not provide noteworthy evidence for the presence of interaction between problem drinking and the observed confounders.

Conclusion

In a cross-sectional national survey of the adult population of a middle income country with high tuberculosis burden, problem drinking was associated with a two fold increase in the odds of past TB diagnosis after controlling for a large number of socio-economic and biological confounders. Within the limitations of a cross-sectional study design with self-reported tuberculosis status, these results adds to previous evidence of a causal link between problem drinking and tuberculosis, and suggest that the observed higher prevalence of tuberculosis among problem drinkers commonly found in population studies cannot be attributed to the confounding effect of the uneven distribution of other risk factors.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Cois and Ehrlich; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Rehm J, Samokhvalov AV, Neuman MG, Room R, Parry C, Lönnroth K, Patra J, Poznyak V, Popova S: The association between alcohol use, alcohol use disorders and tuberculosis (TB). A systematic review. BMC Public Health 2009, 9:450. BioMed Central Full Text
• [2]Lönnroth K, Williams BG, Stadlin S, Jaramillo E, Dye C: Alcohol use as a risk factor for tuberculosis - a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2008, 8:289. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Nava-Aguilera E, Andersson N, Harris E, Mitchell S, Hamel C, Shea B, López-Vidal Y, Villegas-Arrizón A, Morales-Pérez A: Risk factors associated with recent transmission of tuberculosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2009, 13:17-26.
• [4]Cegielski JP, McMurray DN: The relationship between malnutrition and tuberculosis: evidence from studies in humans and experimental animals. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2004, 8(3):286-298.
• [5]Rhefuess E: Fuel for life – Household Energy and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.
• [6]Lin HH, Ezzati M, Murray M: Tobacco smoke, indoor air pollution and tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2007, 4:e20.
• [7]Department of Health, Medical Research Council, OrcMacro: South Africa Demographic and Health Survey 2003. Pretoria: Department of Health; 2003.
• [8]Department of Health - Medical Research Council: South Africa Demographic and Health Survey 1998. Full Report. Pretoria: Department of Health; 2002.
• [9]Bradshaw D, Steyn K: Poverty and Chronic Diseases in South Africa. Technical Report 2001. Tygerberg: Medical Research Council - Burden of Disease Research Unit; 2001.
• [10]Mayfield D, McLeod G, Hall P: The CAGE questionnaire: validation of a new alcoholism screening instrument. Am J Psychiatry 1974, 131(10):1121-1122.
• [11]Skogen JC, Overland S, Knudsen AK, Mykletun A: Concurrent validity of the CAGE questionnaire. The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study. Addict Behav 2011, 36(4):302-307.
• [12]Fiellin DA, Reid MC, O’Connor PG: Screening for alcohol problems in primary care: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2000, 160(13):1977-1989.
• [13]Claassen JN: The benefits of the CAGE as a screening tool for alcoholism in a closed rural South African community. S Afr Med J 1999, 89(9):976-979.
• [14]World Health Organization: Obesity: Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic. Geneva: World Health Orgnanization; 2000.
• [15]StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 12. College Station: StataCorp LP; 2011.
• [16]DiCiccio TJ, Efron B: Bootstrap confidence intervals. Stat Sci 1996, 11(3):189-212.
• [17]Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB: The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983, 70:41-55.
• [18]Austin PC: An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 2011, 46(3):399-424.
• [19]Heinrich C, Maffioli A, Vázquez G: A Primer for Applying Propensity-score Matching. Impact Evaluation Guidelines, Strategy Development Division, Technical Notes No.IDB-TN-161. Washington: Inter-American Development Bank; 2010.
• [20]Winkelmayer WC, Kurth T: Propensity scores: help or hype? Nephrol Dial Transplant 2004, 19(7):1671-1673.
• [21]Pearl J: Invited commentary: understanding bias amplification. Am J Epidemiol 2011, 174(11):1223-1227.
• [22]Myers JA, Rassen JA, Gagne JJ, Huybrechts KF, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Joffe MM, Glynn RJ: Effects of adjusting for instrumental variables on bias and precision of effect estimates. Am J Epidemiol 2011, 174(11):1213-1222.
• [23]Cepeda MS, Boston R, Farrar JT, Strom BL: Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol 2003, 158(3):280-287.
• [24]Ichino A, Mealli F, Nannicini T: From Temporary Help Jobs to Permanent Employment: What Can We Learn from Matching Estimators and their Sensitivity?. Bonn: IZA; 2006.
• [25]Crowe BJ, Lipkovich IA, Wang O: Comparison of several imputation methods for missing baseline data in propensity scores analysis of binary outcome. Pharm Stat 2010, 9(4):269-279.
• [26]StataCorp: Stata Base Reference Manual: Release 12. College Station: Stata Press; 2011.
• [27]StataCorp: Stata Graph Reference Manual: Release 12. College Station: Stata Press; 2011.
• [28]Getahun H, Gunneberg C, Granich R, Nunn P: HIV infection-associated tuberculosis: the epidemiology and the response. Clin Infect Dis 2010, 50(Suppl 3):S201—S207.
• [29]Fisher JC, Bang H, Kapiga SH: The association between HIV infection and alcohol use: a systematic review and meta-analysis of African studies. Sex Transm Dis 2007, 34(11):856-863.
• [30]Lienhardt C, Fielding K, Sillah JS, Bah B, Gustafson P, Warndorff D, Palayew M, Lisse I, Donkor S, Diallo S, Manneh K, Adegbola R, Aaby P, Bah-Sow O, Bennett S, McAdam K: Investigation of the risk factors for tuberculosis: a case-control study in three countries in West Africa. Int J Epidemiol 2005, 34(4):914-923.
• [31]Reichenheim ME, Coutinho ESF: Measures and models for causal inference in cross-sectional studies: arguments for the appropriateness of the prevalence odds ratio and related logistic regression. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010, 10:66. BioMed Central Full Text
• [32]Marmot MG, Shipley MJ, Rose G, Thomas B: Alcohol and mortality: a U-shaped curve. Lancet 1981, 317(8220):580-583.
• [33]Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL: Modern Epidemiology, 3rd ed edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
• [34]Chen Q, Galfalvy H, Duan N: Effects of disease misclassification on exposure-disease association. Am J Public Health 2013, 103(5):e67-73.
• [35]Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Stürmer T: Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol 2006, 163(12):1149-1156.
• [36]Weitzen S, Lapane KL, Toledano AY, Hume AL, Mor V: Weaknesses of goodness-of-fit tests for evaluating propensity score models: the case of the omitted confounder. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005, 14(4):227-238.
• [37]Zhao Z: Sensitivity of propensity score methods to the specifications. IZA Tech. rep. Bonn 2005
• [38]Galea S, Tracy M: Participation rates in epidemiologic studies. Ann Epidemiol 2007, 17(9):643-653.