ABSTRACT
Regression discontinuity design (RDD) is a quasi-experimental method intended for causal inference in observational settings. While RDD is gaining popularity in clinical studies, there are limited real-world studies examining the performance of this approach on estimating known trial-established casual effects. The goal of this paper is to estimate the effects of statins on myocardial infarction (MI) using RDD and propensity score matching. For the regression discontinuity analysis, we leveraged a 2008 guideline in the UK that recommends statins if a patient’s 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score >20%. We used UK electronic health record data from the Health Improvement Network on 49,242 patients aged 65+ in 2008-2011 (our study baseline) without a history of CVD and no statin use in the year prior to the CVD risk score assessment. Both the regression discontinuity (n=19,432) and the propensity score matched populations (n=24,814) demonstrated good balance of confounders. Using RDD, the adjusted point estimate for statins on MI was in the protective direction and similar to the statin effect observed in clinical trials, although the confidence interval included the null (HR= 0.8, 95%CI: 0.4, 1.4). Conversely, the adjusted estimates using propensity score matching remained in the harmful direction: HR =2.4 (95%CI:2.0, 3.0). Regression discontinuity appeared superior to propensity score matching in replicating the known protective association of statins with MI, although precision was poor. Our findings suggest that, when used appropriately, regression discontinuity can expand the scope of clinical investigations aimed at causal inference by leveraging treatment rules from everyday clinical practice.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was funded by R56-AG061177 from the National Institute on Aging.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
IRB of Columbia University gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* sharing senior authorship
Title revised; Abstract revised; Figure 2, eFigure 1, and eFigure 2 revised; further details provided in Introduction and Methods sections, leading to some updates to the Results; further Discussion points added
Data Availability
The data utilized for this study are available from The Health Improvement Network (THIN; https://www.the-health-improvement-network.com/en/). However, restrictions apply to the availability of this data, and so are not publicly available. However, data are available upon reasonable request and with permission of THIN.
