PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Kumamaru, Hiraku AU - Jalbert, Jessica J. AU - Nguyen, Louis L. AU - Williams, Lauren A AU - Miyata, Hiroaki AU - Setoguchi, Soko TI - Utility of Automated Data-adaptive Propensity Score Method for Confounding by Indication in Comparative Effectiveness Study in Real World Medicare and Registry Data AID - 10.1101/2021.04.06.21254887 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.04.06.21254887 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/09/2021.04.06.21254887.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/09/2021.04.06.21254887.full AB - Background Confounding by indication is a serious threat to comparative studies using real world data. We assessed the utility of automated data-adaptive analytic approach for confounding adjustment when both claims and clinical registry data are available.Methods We used a comparative study example of carotid artery stenting (CAS) vs. carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in 2005-2008 when CAS was only indicated for patients with high surgical risk. We included Medicare beneficiaries linked to the Society for Vascular Surgery’s Vascular Registry >65 years old undergoing CAS/CEA. We compared hazard ratios (HRs) for death while adjusting for confounding by combining various 1) Propensity score (PS) modeling strategies (investigator-specified [IS-PS] vs. automated data-adaptive [ada-PS]); 2) data sources (claims-only, registry-only and claims-plus-registry); and 3) PS adjustment approaches (matching vs. quintiles-adjustment with/without trimming). An HR of 1.0 was a benchmark effect estimate based on CREST trial.Results The cohort included 1,999 CAS and 3,255 CEA patients (mean age 76). CAS patients were more likely symptomatic and at high surgical risk, and experienced higher mortality (crude HR=1.82 for CAS vs. CEA). HRs from PS-quintile adjustment without trimming were 1.48 and 1.52 for claims-only IS-PS and ada-PS, 1.51 and 1.42 for registry-only IS-PS and ada-PS, and 1.34 and 1.23 for claims-plus-registry IS-PS and ada-PS, respectively. Estimates from other PS adjustment approaches showed similar patterns.Conclusions In a comparative effectiveness study of CAS vs. CEA with severe confounding by indication, ada-PS performed better than IS-PS in general, but both claims and registry data were needed to adequately control for bias.Competing Interest StatementHK and HM are affiliated with the department of Healthcare Quality Assessment, University of Tokyo, which is a social collaboration department supported by the National Clinical Database, Johnson & Johnson KK, and Nipro Corporation. HK has received lecture fees from Pfizer Japan KK, Johnson & Johnson KK, and consultancy fees from Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharm. Dr. Jalbert is a full-time employee of Regeneron Pharamaceuticals. This study was conducted prior to her employment at the company. SS has served as a member of the US FDA advisory committee and as a consultant for Pfizer Inc., Medtronic, and Merck. SS has also received research funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Pfizer Inc., and Bristol-Myers Squibb. All other authors have no conflicts to declare.Funding StatementThis project is funded by contract HHSA290-2005-0016-I TO3 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) as part of the Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness (DEcIDE) program; and by IAA Contract 500-2010-00001I TO6 and CEA Contract 500-2010-00001I TO2 from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), U.S. DHHS. Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Brigham and Women's Hospital.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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.YesThe data used for the study are available to researchers through data use agreement with CMS as well as the Society for Vascular Surgery's Vascular Registry (SVS-VR). The corresponding author should be contacted for access to computing code.