Propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting to address confounding by indication in comparative effectiveness research of oral anticoagulants

被引:115
作者
Allan, Victoria [1 ]
Ramagopalan, Sreeram, V [1 ]
Mardekian, Jack [2 ]
Jenkins, Aaron [3 ]
Li, Xiaoyan [4 ]
Pan, Xianying [5 ]
Luo, Xuemei [6 ]
机构
[1] Bristol Myers Squibb, Ctr Observat Res & Data Sci, Uxbridge, Middx, England
[2] Pfizer Inc, Stat Global Biometr & Data Management, New York, NY USA
[3] Pfizer Ltd, Patient Hlth & Impact, Outcomes & Evidence, Tadworth, England
[4] Bristol Myers Squibb, Worldwide Hlth Econ & Outcomes Res, Lawrenceville, NJ USA
[5] Bristol Myers Squibb, Pharmacoepidemiol, Lawrenceville, NJ USA
[6] Pfizer Inc, Patient Hlth & Impact, Outcomes & Evidence, Groton, CT 06340 USA
关键词
atrial fibrillation; comparative effectiveness research; confounding by indication; inverse probability of treatment weighting; oral anticoagulants; propensity score matching; NONVALVULAR ATRIAL-FIBRILLATION; REAL-WORLD DATA; CAUSAL INFERENCE; STROKE PREVENTION; TASK-FORCE; WARFARIN; SAFETY; METAANALYSIS; DABIGATRAN; TUTORIAL;
D O I
10.2217/cer-2020-0013
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
After decades of warfarin being the only oral anticoagulant (OAC) widely available for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, four direct OACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) were approved after demonstrating noninferior efficacy and safety versus warfarin in randomized controlled trials. Comparative effectiveness research of OACs based on real-world data provides complementary information to randomized controlled trials. Propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting are increasingly popular methods used to address confounding by indication potentially arising in comparative effectiveness research due to a lack of randomization in treatment assignment. This review describes the fundamentals of propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting, appraises differences between them and presents applied examples to elevate understanding of these methods within the atrial fibrillation field.
引用
收藏
页码:603 / 614
页数:12
相关论文
共 47 条
  • [1] Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: A systematic review and suggestions for improvement
    Austin, Peter C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2007, 134 (05) : 1128 - U7
  • [2] Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies
    Austin, Peter C.
    Stuart, Elizabeth A.
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2015, 34 (28) : 3661 - 3679
  • [3] A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score
    Austin, Peter C.
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2014, 33 (06) : 1057 - 1069
  • [4] A Tutorial and Case Study in Propensity Score Analysis: An Application to Estimating the Effect of In-Hospital Smoking Cessation Counseling on Mortality
    Austin, Peter C.
    [J]. MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH, 2011, 46 (01) : 119 - 151
  • [5] Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies
    Austin, Peter C.
    [J]. PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2011, 10 (02) : 150 - 161
  • [6] Statistical Criteria for Selecting the Optimal Number of Untreated Subjects Matched to Each Treated Subject When Using Many-to-One Matching on the Propensity Score
    Austin, Peter C.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2010, 172 (09) : 1092 - 1097
  • [7] Good practices for real-world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: Recommendations from the joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on real-world evidence in health care decision making
    Berger, Marc L.
    Sox, Harold
    Willke, Richard J.
    Brixner, Diana L.
    Eichler, Hans-Georg
    Goettsch, Wim
    Madigan, David
    Makady, Amr
    Schneeweiss, Sebastian
    Tarricone, Rosanna
    Wang, Shirley V.
    Watkins, John
    Daniel Mullins, C.
    [J]. PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2017, 26 (09) : 1033 - 1039
  • [8] Three handy tips and a practical guide to improve your propensity score models
    Bergstra, Sytske Anne
    Sepriano, Alexandre
    Ramiro, Sofia
    Landewe, Robert
    [J]. RMD OPEN, 2019, 5 (01):
  • [9] Are propensity scores really superior to standard multivariable analysis?
    Biondi-Zoccai, Giuseppe
    Romagnoli, Enrico
    Agostoni, Pierfrancesco
    Capodanno, Davide
    Castagno, Davide
    D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio
    Sangiorgi, Giuseppe
    Modena, Maria Grazia
    [J]. CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS, 2011, 32 (05) : 731 - 740
  • [10] Applications of propensity score methods in observational comparative effectiveness and safety research: where have we come and where should we go?
    Borah, Bijan J.
    Moriarty, James P.
    Crown, William H.
    Doshi, Jalpa A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH, 2014, 3 (01) : 63 - 78