RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluating the comparability of osteoporosis treatments using propensity score and negative control outcome methods in UK and Denmark electronic health record databases
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.10.02.23296212
DO 10.1101/2023.10.02.23296212
A1 Rathod-Mistry, Trishna
A1 Tan, Eng Hooi
A1 Strauss, Victoria Y
A1 O’Kelly, James
A1 Giorgianni, Francesco
A1 Baxter, Richard
A1 Brunetti, Vanessa C
A1 Pedersen, Alma Becic
A1 Ehrenstein, Vera
A1 Prieto-Alhambra, Daniel
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/10/03/2023.10.02.23296212.abstract
AB Evidence on the comparative effectiveness of osteoporosis treatments is heterogeneous. This may be attributed to different populations and clinical practice, but also to differing methodologies ensuring comparability of treatment groups before treatment effect estimation and the amount of residual confounding by indication. This study assessed the comparability of denosumab vs oral bisphosphonate (OBP) groups using propensity score (PS) methods and negative control outcome (NCO) analysis. A total of 280,288 women aged ≥50 years initiating denosumab or OBP in 2011-2018 were included from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and the Danish National Registries (DNR). Balance of observed covariates was assessed using absolute standardised mean difference (ASMD) before and after PS weighting, matching, and stratification, with ASMD >0.1 indicating imbalance. Residual confounding was assessed using NCOs with ≥100 events. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) between treatment and NCO was estimated using Cox models. Presence of residual confounding was evaluated with two approaches: (1) >5% of NCOs with 95% CI excluding 1, (2) >5% of NCOs with an upper CI <0.75 or lower CI >1.3. The number of imbalanced covariates before adjustment (CPRD 22/87; DNR 18/83) decreased, with 2-11% imbalance remaining after weighting, matching or stratification. Using approach 1, residual confounding was present for all PS methods in both databases (≥8% of NCOs). Using approach 2, residual confounding was present in CPRD with PS matching (5.3%) and stratification (6.4%), but not with weighting (4.3%). Within DNR, no NCOs had HR estimates with upper or lower CI limits beyond the specified bounds indicating residual confounding for any PS method. Achievement of covariate balance and determination of residual bias were dependent upon several factors including the population under study, PS method, prevalence of NCO, and the threshold indicating residual confounding.Competing Interest StatementDPAs department at Oxford University has received grant/s from Amgen, Chiesi-Taylor, Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Biopharma. His research group has received consultancy fees from Astra Zeneca and UCB Biopharma. Amgen, Astellas, Janssen, Synapse Management Partners and UCB Biopharma have funded or supported training programmes organised by 21 Confidential General and Administrative DPAs department. JOK, FG, RB, VCB are employees and own equity in Amgen. EHT, TRM, VYS, VE, ABP have no conflicts of interest to declare. Funding StatementThis study was funded by Amgen Inc. The funding source was involved in the study protocol and manuscript review. 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:Access to CPRD data was approved (Protocol #20_000206) according to CPRDs research data governance framework. 20 Confidential General and Administrative The study was reported to the Danish Data Protection Agency through registration at Aarhus University (record: AU-2016-051-000001, serial number 880). An informed consent or ethical approval is not required for studies based solely on existing registry dataI 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.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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesQualified researchers may request data from the deidentified and aggregated results of this study from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.