Presentations in this series 1.Introduction 2.Self-matching 3.Proxies 4.Intermediates 5.Instruments 6.Equipoise Avoiding Bias Due to Unmeasured Covariates.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
June 25, 2006 Propensity Score Adjustment in Survival Models Carolyn Rutter Group Health Cooperative AcademyHealth, Seattle WA.
Advertisements

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
How would you explain the smoking paradox. Smokers fair better after an infarction in hospital than non-smokers. This apparently disagrees with the view.
Comparator Selection in Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
1 Arlene Ash QMC - Third Tuesday September 21, 2010 (as amended, Sept 23) Analyzing Observational Data: Focus on Propensity Scores.
Propensity Scores October 2012 Alexander M. Walker MD, DrPH Extensive parts of this presentation incorporate the work of John D. Seeger, PharmD, DrPH.
Presentations in this series 1.Introduction 2.Self-matching 3.Proxies 4.Intermediates 5.Instruments 6.Equipoise Avoiding Bias Due to Unmeasured Covariates.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence May–June 2010.
Presentations in this series 1.Introduction 2.Self-matching 3.Proxies 4.Intermediates 5.Instruments 6.Equipoise Avoiding Bias Due to Unmeasured Covariates.
Logistic Regression Part I - Introduction. Logistic Regression Regression where the response variable is dichotomous (not continuous) Examples –effect.
1 Arlene Ash QMC - Third Tuesday September 21, 2010 Analyzing Observational Data: Focus on Propensity Scores.
Experimental Design.
Concept of Measurement
The Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference Alexander Tabarrok January 2007.
Clustered or Multilevel Data
RACIAL DISPARITIES IN PRESCRIPTION DRUG UTILIZATION AN ANALYSIS OF BETA-BLOCKER AND STATIN USE FOLLOWING HOSPITALIZATION FOR ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION.
Bias Due to Unmeasured Covariates Alec Walker Confounding by Indication.
Safety and effectiveness of bivalirudin in routine care of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention JA Rassen, MA Mittleman, RJ Glynn, A.
Analysis of Clustered and Longitudinal Data
Covariate Selection for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
Impact of Hospital Provider Payment Mechanism on Household Health Service Utilization in Vietnam (preliminary results) Sarah Bales Public Policy in Asia,
Correlation and Linear Regression Chapter 13 McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
McGraw-Hill/IrwinCopyright © 2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Simple Linear Regression Analysis Chapter 13.
1 Lecture 20: Non-experimental studies of interventions Describe the levels of evaluation (structure, process, outcome) and give examples of measures of.
Comparing high-dimensional propensity score versus lasso variable selection for confounding adjustment in a novel simulation framework Jessica Franklin.
Advanced Statistics for Interventional Cardiologists.
1 Is Managed Care Superior to Traditional Fee-For-Service among HIV-Infected Beneficiaries of Medicaid? David Zingmond, MD, PhD UCLA Division of General.
Presentations in this series 1.Overview and Randomization 2.Self-matching 3.Proxies 4.Intermediates 5.Instruments 6.Equipoise Avoiding Bias Due to Unmeasured.
Epidemiology The Basics Only… Adapted with permission from a class presentation developed by Dr. Charles Lynch – University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Instrumental variables for comparative effectiveness research: a review of applications M. Alan Brookhart, Ph.D. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology, Brigham.
Thomas S. Rector, PhD, Inder S. Anand, MD, David Nelson, PhD, Kristine Ensrud, MD and Ann Bangerter, MS CHF QUERI NETWORK November 8, 2007 VA Medical Center,
Clinical Trial Results. org Relationship Between Adherence to Evidence- Based Pharmacotherapy and Long-term Mortality After Acute Myocardial Infarction.
Health Care Costs. How we pay for health care: Private pay Private pay Group health insurance Group health insurance Government sponsored plans Government.
Statistics for clinicians Biostatistics course by Kevin E. Kip, Ph.D., FAHA Professor and Executive Director, Research Center University of South Florida,
Correlation and Regression PS397 Testing and Measurement January 16, 2007 Thanh-Thanh Tieu.
EVIDENCE ABOUT DIAGNOSTIC TESTS Min H. Huang, PT, PhD, NCS.
Multilevel Data in Outcomes Research Types of multilevel data common in outcomes research Random versus fixed effects Statistical Model Choices “Shrinkage.
Experimental studies Jean-François Boivin 25 October 2010.
Alec Walker September 2014 Core Characteristics of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Jean Yoon December 15, 2010 Research Design. Outline Causality and study design Quasi-experimental methods for observational studies –Covariate matching.
Design of a multicohort evaluation of statin adherence after the start of 2 cost-sharing policies Sebastian Schneeweiss, et al. Circulation 2007;115:
Design and Analysis of Clinical Study 2. Bias and Confounders Dr. Tuan V. Nguyen Garvan Institute of Medical Research Sydney, Australia.
Siroli Lily: State Flower of Manipur. Cross- sectional Study Subodh S Gupta MGIMS, Sewagram.
Public Policy Analysis ECON 3386 Anant Nyshadham.
Obesity, Medication Use and Expenditures among Nonelderly Adults with Asthma Eric M. Sarpong AHRQ Conference September 10, 2012.
The Association between blood glucose and length of hospital stay due to Acute COPD exacerbation Yusuf Kasirye, Melissa Simpson, Naren Epperla, Steven.
Correlational Studies for Drug Effects Alec Walker October
Term 4, 2006BIO656--Multilevel Models 1 PART 07 Evaluating Hospital Performance.
A Claims Database Approach to Evaluating Cardiovascular Safety of ADHD Medications A. J. Allen, M.D., Ph.D. Child Psychiatrist, Pharmacologist Global Medical.
Presentations in this series 1.Overview and Randomization 2.Self-matching 3.Proxies 4.Intermediates 5.Instruments 6.Equipoise Avoiding Bias Due to Unmeasured.
Patsi Sinnott, PT, PhD March 2011 Instrumental Variables Models.
Seminar Unit 6 Principles and Practices of Managed Care This presentation created by and used with permission of Ilene Margolin MRT Behavior Health Reform.
1 EPI235: Epi Methods in HSR April 5, 2005 L3 Evaluating Health Services using administrative data 2: Advanced Topics in Risk Adjustment (Dr. Schneeweiss)
Reliability Ability to produce similar results when repeated measurements are made under identical conditions. Consistency of the results Can you get.
Secondary prevention of a Recurrent ACS; Results from the 2004 & 2006 ACSIS Survey Perl L, Behar S, Schwartz R, Mosseri M Meir Hospital and Sheba Tel Hashomer,
Patsi Sinnott, PT, PhD August 8, 2012 Instrumental Variables Models.
Transparency in the Use of Propensity Score Methods
Case-Control Studies September 2014 Alexander M. Walker MD, DrPH With Sonia Hernández-Díaz MD, DrPH.
Carina Signori, DO Journal Club August 2010 Macdonald, M. et al. Diabetes Care; Jun 2010; 33,
Uses of Diagnostic Tests Screen (mammography for breast cancer) Diagnose (electrocardiogram for acute myocardial infarction) Grade (stage of cancer) Monitor.
Table 1. Methodological Evaluation of Observational Research (MORE) – observational studies of incidence or prevalence of chronic diseases Tatyana Shamliyan.
Bootstrap and Model Validation
Regression Analysis AGEC 784.
S1316 analysis details Garnet Anderson Katie Arnold
Martijn Schuemie, Peter Rijnbeek, Jenna Reps, Marc Suchard
Health and Disease Management
Presenter: Wen-Ching Lan Date: 2018/03/28
Annals of Internal Medicine • Vol. 167 No. 12 • 19 December 2017
Risk adjustment using administrative and clinical data: model comparison
Baseline Demographic Characteristics of Adults With Diagnosed Heart Failure and Eligible to Receive Lipid-Lowering Therapy Alan S. Go, et al.
Presentation transcript:

Presentations in this series 1.Introduction 2.Self-matching 3.Proxies 4.Intermediates 5.Instruments 6.Equipoise Avoiding Bias Due to Unmeasured Covariates Alec Walker

T D X Self-matching Proxies Randomization Intermediates

T D X Self-matching Proxies Randomization Intermediates Instruments

4 An instrument is a measured variable that is – known to be uncorrelated with the unmeasured predictors – a correlate of treatment – not in itself a direct cause of the outcome Any correlation between the instrument and outcome is -unconfounded by unmeasured predictors -mediated only by treatment permitting unconfounded estimates of treatment effect

5 Adherence Hospital Admission

6 Adherence Hospital Admission Severity

7 Adherence Hospital Admission Severity

8 Adherence Hospital Admission Severity Copayment In the United States, the amount that a patient must pay for a drug (“copayment”) depends on administrative arrangements between the employer and the private insurance company.

9 Hospital Admission Copayment To what degree is Copayment a cause of Hospital Admission?

10 Adherence Hospital Admission Copayment Adherence is an intermediate variable.

11 Adherence Hospital Admission Severity Copayment Severity confounds the relation between Adherence and Hospital Admission, but because Severity is unrelated to Copayment, …

12 Adherence Hospital Admission Severity Copayment Severity of disease does not confound the association between Copayment and Hospital Admission and is ignorable for the health economist.

13 Adherence varies with – Severity – Copayment for drug Severity – Unmeasured – Predicts hospitalization, and therefore is a – Confounder of adherence Copayment for drug – Well-measured – Does not predict hospitalization – Not correlated with Severity  The association between Copayment and Hospitalization is not confounded by severity

14 Copayment Adherence Hospital Admission Severity If ∆ Copayment affects hospital admission rates, it can only be through the mediating effect of ∆ Adherence. A test of the effect of Copayment is a test of the effect of Adherence.

15 Copayment Adherence Hospital Admission Severity If ∆ Copayment affects hospital admission rates, it can only be through the mediating effect of ∆ Adherence. The size of the effect of adherence can be deduced from the associations between copay and (1) adherence and (2) admission rates.

16 Copayment Adherence Hospital Admission Severity If ∆ Copayment affects hospital admission rates, it can only be through the mediating effect of ∆ Adherence. The size of the effect of adherence can be deduced from the associations between copay and (1) adherence and (2) admission rates. Copayment, unconfounded by severity, is an instrument for adherence.

17 The slope of the regression line of outcome variable against the instrument Divided by The slope of the regression line of the predictor variable against the instrument All regressions are made conditionally on other known predictors of outcome and target variable, e.g. with covariate control.

18 Members of a large health plan With a diagnosis of CHF Treatment with a single beta blocker in 2002 Adherence in 2002 measured by days treated / days eligible Many medical covariates identified in 2002 diagnoses, drugs, costs Copay in 2002 identified for the beta blocker of treatment – Tiers – Variations according to employer contract CHF hospitalization if any identified in 2003 Cole JA et al 2006

19 Predict the Explanatory Variable Adherence in 2002 As a function of observed values Copayment in 2002 Predict the Outcome Hospitalization for CHF (yes/no) in 2003 As a function of the fitted value for Adherence in 2002

20

21 per $10 Δ Copayment +0.8% ∆ Hospitalization -1.8% ∆ Adherence

22 per $10 Δ Copayment +0.8% ∆ Hospitalization -1.8% ∆ Adherence +4.4% ∆ Hospitalization -10% ∆ Adherence

23 Predict the Explanatory Variable Adherence in 2002 As a function of observed values Copayment in 2002 First stage Predict the Outcome Hospitalization for CHF (yes/no) in 2003 As a function of the fitted value for Adherence in 2002 Second stage Any factor that is correlated with copayment and that predicts outcome will invalidate copayment as an instrument. We can however, condition on that factor by including it in a larger regression model.

24 Predict the Explanatory Variable Adherence in 2002 As a function of observed values Copayment in 2002 with concurrent control for Type of beta-blocker 2002 Other diseases 2002 Age, region, sex 2002 Predict the Outcome Hospitalization for CHF in 2003 As a function of the fitted value for Adherence in 2002 with concurrent control for Type of beta-blocker 2002 Other diseases 2002 Age, region, sex 2002 Unmeasured characteristics that are not associated with Copayment conditionally on type of beta- blocker, other disease, age, region and sex do not affect the coefficient associated with copayment for either regression.

Fitted 2002 Adherence Characteristic Effect SE $10 higher copayment -1.8% 0.2% Tablets per day -2.1% 0.6% Acute Myocardial Infarction +2.6% 0.9% Cardiac Dysrhythmias +2.1% 0.6% Chronic renal failure -2.4% 1.0% Metoprolol tartarate* -5.9% 1.0% Metoprolol succinate* -2.5% 1.0% Atenolol* -4.1% 1.1% *Versus carvedilol

Distance to care provider Preference-based – Region – Hospital – Team – Provider Day of week Calendar time Randomized encouragement Copayment 26 From: Brookhart MA, Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S. Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Jun;19(6):

27 How strongly does the Instrument predict the Target Exposure? – Perfect  No room for unmeasured confounders – Weak  Highly model-dependent Does the Instrument predict Outcome? – Directly? --> Do not use – Through unmeasured covariates? --> Do not use – Through measured covariates? (Other treatments?) Including the covariates makes results model-dependent Match on or balance on covariates Does the Instrument affect the effect of exposure?

Justify the motivation Describe the theoretical basis Report the strength of the instrument Report risk factors in relation to the instrument Report other treatments in relation to the instrument Consider to whom the effect really generalizes 28 From: Brookhart MA, Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S. Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Jun;19(6):

29 Conditionally on Unmeasured covariates are uncorrelated with RandomizationTreatment Self-matching Treatment (time-invariant covariates only) Proxies Outcome or Treatment Intermediates Outcome or Treatment InstrumentsTreatment

30