Using imputed pre-treatment cholesterol in a propensity score model to reduce confounding by indication: results from the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Robyn L McClelland¹  Christopher T Sibley²  Neal W Jorgensen¹ 

[1] Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA;National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA

关键词: Statins;    Inverse probability of treatment weights;    Propensity score;    Confounding by indication;    Multiple imputation;   

Others  :  1092410
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-13-81

 received in 2012-12-07, accepted in 2013-06-19,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Studying the effects of medications on endpoints in an observational setting is an important yet challenging problem due to confounding by indication. The purpose of this study is to describe methodology for estimating such effects while including prevalent medication users. These techniques are illustrated in models relating statin use to cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a large multi-ethnic cohort study.

Methods

The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) includes 6814 participants aged 45-84 years free of CVD. Confounding by indication was mitigated using a two step approach: First, the untreated values of cholesterol were treated as missing data and the values imputed as a function of the observed treated value, dose and type of medication, and participant characteristics. Second, we construct a propensity-score modeling the probability of medication initiation as a function of measured covariates and estimated pre-treatment cholesterol value. The effect of statins on CVD endpoints were assessed using weighted Cox proportional hazard models using inverse probability weights based on the propensity score.

Results

Based on a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) statins are associated with a reduced risk of CVD (relative risk ratio = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.70, 0.77). In an unweighted Cox model adjusting for traditional risk factors we observed little association of statins with CVD (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.60, 1.59). Using weights based on a propensity model for statins that did not include the estimated pre-treatment cholesterol we observed a slight protective association (HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.54-1.57). Results were similar using a new-user design where prevalent users of statins are excluded (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.45-1.80). Using weights based on a propensity model with estimated pre-treatment cholesterol the effects of statins (HR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.38, 1.42) were consistent with the RCT literature.

Conclusions

The imputation of pre-treated cholesterol levels for participants on medication at baseline in conjunction with a propensity score yielded estimates that were consistent with the RCT literature. These techniques could be useful in any example where inclusion of participants exposed at baseline in the analysis is desirable, and reasonable estimates of pre-exposure biomarker values can be estimated.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Jorgensen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Robinson JG, Booth B: Statin use and lipid levels in older adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2001 to 2006. J Clin Lipidol 2010, 4(6):483-490. Nov-Dec Epub 2010 Oct 13
• [2]Ray WA: Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol 2003, 158:915-920.
• [3]Stürmer T, Joshi M, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Rothman KJ, Schneeweiss S: A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59(5):437-447.
• [4]Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB: The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983, 70:41-55.
• [5]Seeger JD, Walker AM, Williams PL, Saperia GM, Sacks FM: A propensity score-matched cohort study of the effect of statins, mainly fluvastatin, on the occurrence of acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2003, 92:1447-1451.
• [6]McClelland RL, Kronmal RA, Haessler J, Blumenthal R, Goff DC: Estimation of risk factor associations when the response is influenced by medication use: an imputation approach. Stat Med 2008, 27:5039-5053.
• [7]Bild DE, Bluemke DA, Burke GL, Detrano R, Diez Roux AV, Folsom AR, Greenland P, Jacobs DR, Kronmal R, Liu K, Clark Nelson J, O'Leary D, Saad MF, Shea S, Szklo M, Tracy RP: Multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis: objectives and design. Am J Epidemiol 2002, 156:871-881.
• [8]Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS: Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem 1972, 18:499-502.
• [9]Van Buuren S, Boshuizen HC, Knook DL: Multiple imputation of missing blood pressure covariates in survival analysis. Stat Med 1999, 18:681-694.
• [10]Royston P: Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata J 2004, 4(3):227-241.
• [11]Royston P: Multiple imputation of missing values: update of ice. Stata J 2005, 5(4):527-536.
• [12]Rubin DB: Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: Wiley; 1987.
• [13]Rubin DB: Inference and missing data (with discussion). Biometrika 1976, 63:581-592.
• [14]Schafer JL, Olsen MK: Multiple imputation for multivariate missing-data problems: a data analyst's perspective. Multivar Behav Res 1998, 33(4):545-571.
• [15]Herna´n MA, Robins JM: Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006, 60(7):578-586. 10.1136/jech.2004.029496
• [16]Cole SR, Herna´n MA: Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol 2008, 168:656-664. 10.1093/aje/kwn164
• [17]Xu S, Ross C, Raebel MA, Shetterly S, Blanchette C, Smith D: Use of stabilized inverse propensity scores as weights to directly estimate relative risk and its confidence intervals. Value Health 2010, 13(2):273-277.
• [18]Harder VS, Stuart EA, Anthony J: Propensity score techniques and the assessment of measured covariate balance to test Causal Associations in Psychological Research. Psychol Meth 2010, 15(3):234-249. PMCID NIHMS 192966
• [19]Cheung BM, Lauder IJ, Lau CP, Kumana CR: Meta-analysis of large randomized controlled trials to evaluate the impact of statins on cardiovascular outcomes. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004, 57:640-651.
• [20]Thavendiranathan P, Bagai A, Brookhart MA, Choudhry NK: Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases with statin therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 2006, 166:2307-2313.
• [21]Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaborators: The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials. Lancet 2012.
• [22]Kostis WJ, Cheng JQ, Dobrzynski JM, Cabrera J, Kostis JB: Meta-analysis of statin effects in women versus men. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012, 59(6):572-582.
• [23]StataCorp: Stata 11 Survival Analysis and Epidemiological Tables Reference Manual. College Station, TX: Stata Press; 2009.
• [24]Robins JM, Blevins D, Ritter G, Wulfsohn M: G-estimation of the effect of prophylaxis therapy for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia on the survival of AIDS patients. Epidemiology 1992, 3:319-336.
• [25]Witteman JC, D’Agostino RB, Stijnen T, Kannel W, Cobb JC, de Ridder MA: G-estimation of causal effects: isolated systolic hypertension and cardiovascular death in the Framingham Heart Study. Am J Epidemiol 1998, 148(4):390-401.