Comparing marginal structural models to standard methods for estimating treatment effects of antihypertensive combination therapy

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Almut G Winterstein²  Carl J Pepine⁴  Julie A Johnson⁴  Babette A Brumback²  Jonathan Shuster³  Rhonda M Cooper-DeHoff⁴  Joseph AC Delaney²  Tobias Gerhard¹ 

[1] Department of Pharmacy Practice and Administration, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA;Department of Biostatistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA;Department of Health Outcomes and Policy, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA;Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

关键词: Marginal structural models;    Time-dependent confounding;    Hypertension;    Blood pressure;   

Others  :  1127033
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-12-119

 received in 2011-11-08, accepted in 2012-07-30,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Due to time-dependent confounding by blood pressure and differential loss to follow-up, it is difficult to estimate the effectiveness of aggressive versus conventional antihypertensive combination therapies in non-randomized comparisons.

Methods

We utilized data from 22,576 hypertensive coronary artery disease patients, prospectively enrolled in the INternational VErapamil-Trandolapril STudy (INVEST). Our post-hoc analyses did not consider the randomized treatment strategies, but instead defined exposure time-dependently as aggressive treatment (≥3 concomitantly used antihypertensive medications) versus conventional treatment (≤2 concomitantly used antihypertensive medications). Study outcome was defined as time to first serious cardiovascular event (non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or all-cause death). We compared hazard ratio (HR) estimates for aggressive vs. conventional treatment from a Marginal Structural Cox Model (MSCM) to estimates from a standard Cox model. Both models included exposure to antihypertensive treatment at each follow-up visit, demographics, and baseline cardiovascular risk factors, including blood pressure. The MSCM further adjusted for systolic blood pressure at each follow-up visit, through inverse probability of treatment weights.

Results

2,269 (10.1%) patients experienced a cardiovascular event over a total follow-up of 60,939 person-years. The HR for aggressive treatment estimated by the standard Cox model was 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.87-1.07). The equivalent MSCM, which was able to account for changes in systolic blood pressure during follow-up, estimated a HR of 0.81 (95% CI 0.71-0.92).

Conclusions

Using a MSCM, aggressive treatment was associated with a lower risk for serious cardiovascular outcomes compared to conventional treatment. In contrast, a standard Cox model estimated similar risks for aggressive and conventional treatments.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00133692

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Gerhard et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Major clinical trials of hypertension: what should be done next?: Major clinical trials of hypertension: what should be done next? Hypertension 2005, 46:1-6.
• [2]Boger-Megiddo I, Heckbert SR, Weiss NS, McKnight B, Furberg CD, Wiggins KL, Delaney JA, Siscovick DS, Larson EB, Lemaitre RN, et al.: Myocardial infarction and stroke associated with diuretic based two drug antihypertensive regimens: population based case–control study. BMJ 2010, 340:103.
• [3]Cushman WC, Evans GW, Byington RP, Goff DC, Grimm RH, Cutler JA, Simons-Morton DG, Basile JN, Corson MA, Probstfield JL, et al.: Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2010, 362:1575-1585.
• [4]Jamerson K, Weber MA, Bakris GL, Dahlof B, Pitt B, Shi V, Hester A, Gupte J, Gatlin M, Velazquez EJ: Benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2008, 359:2417-2428.
• [5]Timbie JW, Hayward RA, Vijan S: Variation in the net benefit of aggressive cardiovascular risk factor control across the US population of patients with diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med 2010, 170:1037-1044.
• [6]Avins AL: When clinical practice guidelines meet the black box. Arch Intern Med 2010, 170:1013-1014.
• [7]Robins JM, Hernan MA, Brumback B: Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 2000, 11:550-560.
• [8]Choi HK, Hernan MA, Seeger JD, Robins JM, Wolfe F: Methotrexate and mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective study. Lancet 2002, 359:1173-1177.
• [9]Cook NR, Cole SR, Hennekens CH: Use of a marginal structural model to determine the effect of aspirin on cardiovascular mortality in the Physicians' Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 2002, 155:1045-1053.
• [10]Hernan MA, Brumback B, Robins JM: Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men. Epidemiology 2000, 11:561-570.
• [11]Delaney JA, Daskalopoulou SS, Suissa S: Traditional versus marginal structural models to estimate the effectiveness of beta-blocker use on mortality after myocardial infarction. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2009, 18:1-6.
• [12]Sugihara M, Kushiro T, Saito I, Matsushita Y, Hiramatsu K: Estimating antihypertensive effects of combination therapy in an observational study using marginal structural models. Biom J 2009, 51:789-800.
• [13]Pepine CJ, Handberg-Thurmond E, Marks RG, Conlon M, Cooper-DeHoff R, Volkers P, Zellig P: Rationale and design of the International Verapamil SR/Trandolapril Study (INVEST): an Internet-based randomized trial in coronary artery disease patients with hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998, 32:1228-1237.
• [14]Pepine CJ, Handberg EM, Cooper-DeHoff RM, Marks RG, Kowey P, Messerli FH, Mancia G, Cangiano JL, Garcia-Barreto D, Keltai M, et al.: A calcium antagonist vs a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease. The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial. Jama 2003, 290:2805-2816.
• [15]Pepine CJ, Kowey PR, Kupfer S, Kolloch RE, Benetos A, Mancia G, Coca A, Cooper-DeHoff RM, Handberg E, Gaxiola E, et al.: Predictors of adverse outcome among patients with hypertension and coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 47:547-551.
• [16]Cooper-DeHoff RM, Handberg EM, Cohen J, Kowey P, Messerli FH, Mancia G, Cangiano JL, Gaxiola E, Garcia-Barreto D, Hewkin AC, Pepine CJ: Characteristics of contemporary patients with hypertension and coronary artery disease. Clin Cardiol 2004, 27:571-576.
• [17]Bakris GL, Gaxiola E, Messerli FH, Mancia G, Erdine S, Cooper-DeHoff R, Pepine CJ: Clinical outcomes in the diabetes cohort of the INternational VErapamil SR-Trandolapril study. Hypertension 2004, 44:637-642.
• [18]Cooper-DeHoff RM, Gong Y, Handberg EM, Bavry AA, Denardo SJ, Bakris GL, Pepine CJ: Tight blood pressure control and cardiovascular outcomes among hypertensive patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease. JAMA 2010, 304:61-68.
• [19]Messerli FH, Mancia G, Conti CR, Hewkin AC, Kupfer S, Champion A, Kolloch R, Benetos A, Pepine CJ: Dogma disputed: can aggressively lowering blood pressure in hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease be dangerous?Ann. Intern Med 2006, 144:884-893.
• [20]D'Agostino RB, Lee ML, Belanger AJ, Cupples LA, Anderson K, Kannel WB: Relation of pooled logistic regression to time dependent Cox regression analysis: the Framingham Heart Study. Stat Med 1990, 9:1501-1515.
• [21]Claxton AJ, Cramer J, Pierce C: A systematic review of the associations between dose regimens and medication compliance. Clin Ther 2001, 23:1296-1310.
• [22]Atkin PA, Veitch PC, Veitch EM, Ogle SJ: The epidemiology of serious adverse drug reactions among the elderly. Drugs Aging 1999, 14:141-152.
• [23]Kjekshus JK: Importance of heart rate in determining beta-blocker efficacy in acute and long-term acute myocardial infarction intervention trials. Am J Cardiol 1986, 57:43F-49F.
• [24]Lewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N, Peto R, Collins R: Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet 2002, 360:1903-1913.
• [25]Turnbull F: Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively-designed overviews of randomised trials. Lancet 2003, 362:1527-1535.
• [26]Law MR, Morris JK, Wald NJ: Use of blood pressure lowering drugs in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of 147 randomised trials in the context of expectations from prospective epidemiological studies. BMJ 2009, 338:b1665.
• [27]Verdecchia P, Staessen JA, Angeli F, de Simone G, Achilli A, Ganau A, Mureddu G, Pede S, Maggioni AP, Lucci D, Reboldi G: Usual versus tight control of systolic blood pressure in non-diabetic patients with hypertension (Cardio-Sis): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet 2009, 374:525-533.
• [28]Moodie EE, Richardson TS, Stephens DA: Demystifying optimal dynamic treatment regimes. Biometrics 2007, 63:447-455.
• [29]Hernan MA, Lanoy E, Costagliola D, Robins JM: Comparison of dynamic treatment regimes via inverse probability weighting. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2006, 98:237-242.
• [30]Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, Adams RJ, Berry JD, Brown TM, Carnethon MR, Dai S, de Simone G, Ford ES, et al.: Heart disease and stroke statistics–2011 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2011, 123:e18-e209.
• [31]Variability of blood pressure and the results of screening in the hypertension detection and follow-up program J Chronic Dis 1978, 31:651-667.
• [32]Bennett S: Blood pressure measurement error: its effect on cross-sectional and trend analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 1994, 47:293-301.
• [33]Marshall T: Misleading measurements: modeling the effects of blood pressure misclassification in a United States population. Med Decis Making 2006, 26:624-632.
• [34]The sixth report of the Joint National Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure Arch Intern Med 1997, 157:2413-2446.
• [35]Mantel N, Byar DP: Evaluation of response-time data involving transient states-illustration using heart-transplant data. J Am Stat Assoc 1974, 69:81-86.