Abstract
Background Regression discontinuity is gaining popularity in epidemiologic studies aimed at causal inference from observational data, but there are limited real-world studies comparing this approach to potential outcomes methods.
Methods In this methodologic investigation, we estimate the causal effect of statins on myocardial infarction (MI), a positive control outcome, using regression discontinuity and propensity score matching. For the regression discontinuity analysis, we leveraged a 2008 UK guideline that recommends statins if a patient’s 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score >20%. We used electronic health record data (2008-2018) from the Health Improvement Network (THIN) on 49,242 patients aged 65 and older in the UK without a history of CVD and no statin use in the year prior to the CVD risk score assessment. Outcomes were defined using Read codes and censored at 10 years; 10-year CVD risk was assessed primarily (81.8%) using the 1991 Framingham risk score.
Results In sex and age adjusted analyses, the estimate for statin use on MI was HR = 2.69 (95% CI: 2.28, 3.17). Both the regression discontinuity (n=19,432) and the propensity score matched populations (n=24,814) demonstrated good balance of confounders. Using regression discontinuity, the adjusted point estimate for statins on MI was in the protective direction, although the confidence interval included the null (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.44, 1.44). Conversely, the adjusted estimates using propensity score matching remained in the harmful direction: HR = 2.41 (95% CI: 1.96, 2.99).
Conclusion Regression discontinuity appeared superior to propensity score matching in estimation of the known protective association of statins with MI, although precision was poor. A strength of regression discontinuity is that it can better account for bias due to unmeasured confounders than matching, which is of key importance in observational studies aimed at causal inference.
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
We have removed the following authors from the original version of this pre-print: - Andrew Moran - M. Maria Glymour - Soohyun Kim
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.
