Search

Graphical abstract, Users of newly marketed drugs often differ from the patients included in randomized clinical trials, and from patients prescribed similar drugs. Cohorts of such users may be compared using propensity score adjustment, or similar user cohorts may be built using high-dimensional propensity score matching in large population databases. One such database is SNDS, the French nationwide claims and hospitalization database, which covers 99 % of the French population. It has yet been rarely used. To study the comparative effectiveness and safety in secondary coronary prevention of ticagrelor, compared to clopidogrel or prasugrel, we identified in SNDS patients who were dispensed any of the three antiplatelet agents of interest (± aspirin) within a month after discharge from hospital for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and followed them one year for recurrence of ACS, stroke, acute bleeding, or death. High-dimensional propensity scores were developed to identify matched cohorts. Drug performances were also compared in the whole population using adjustment on the same parameters. Here we describe the database that was used, and the methods developed for the high-dimensional propensity score matching, resulting in standardized mean differences between the matched populations of less than 2 % for all of the 500+ variables included in the model. • This study was done in a newly available large-scale claims database, which may differ from other population databases, by it size and exhaustiveness • The methods elaborate on standard high-dimensional propensity scores as adapted to this claims database

Purpose High-dimensional propensity scores (hdPS) can adjust for measured confounders, but it remains unclear how well it can adjust for unmeasured confounders. Our goal was to identify if the hdPS method could adjust for confounders which were hidden to the hdPS algorithm. Method The hdPS algorithm was used to estimate two hdPS; the first version (hdPS-1) was estimated using data provided by 6 data dimensions and the second version (hdPS-2) was estimated using data provided from only two of the 6 data dimensions. Two matched sub-cohorts were created by matching one patient initiated on a high-dose statin to one patient initiated on a low-dose statin based on either hdPS-1 (Matched hdPS Full Info Sub-Cohort) or hdPS-2 (Matched hdPS Hidden Info Sub-Cohort). Performances of both hdPS were compared by means of the absolute standardized differences (ASDD) regarding 18 characteristics (data on seven of the 18 characteristics were hidden to the hdPS algorithm when estimating the hdPS-2). Results Eight out of the 18 characteristics were shown to be unbalanced within the unmatched cohort. Matching on either hdPS achieved adequate balance (i.e., ASDD

Background Comparative performance of the traditional propensity score (PS) and high-dimensional propensity score (hdPS) methods in the adjustment for confounding by indication remains unclear. We aimed to identify which method provided the best adjustment for confounding by indication within the context of the risk of diabetes among patients exposed to moderate versus high potency statins. Method A cohort of diabetes-free incident statins users was identified from the Quebec’s publicly funded medico-administrative database (Full Cohort). We created two matched sub-cohorts by matching one patient initiated on a lower potency to one patient initiated on a high potency either on patients’ PS or hdPS. Both methods’ performance were compared by means of the absolute standardized differences (ASDD) regarding relevant characteristics and by means of the obtained measures of association. Results Eight out of the 18 examined characteristics were shown to be unbalanced within the Full Cohort. Although matching on either method achieved balance within all examined characteristic, matching on patients’ hdPS created the most balanced sub-cohort. Measures of associations and confidence intervals obtained within the two matched sub-cohorts overlapped. Conclusion Although ASDD suggest better matching with hdPS than with PS, measures of association were almost identical when adjusted for either method. Use of the hdPS method in adjusting for confounding by indication within future studies should be recommended due to its ability to identify confounding variables which may be unknown to the investigators. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0119-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Les scores de propension (PS) sont fréquemment utilisés dans l’ajustement pour des facteurs confondants liés au biais d’indication. Cependant, ils sont limités par le fait qu’ils permettent uniquement l’ajustement pour des facteurs confondants connus et mesurés. Les scores de propension à hautes dimensions (hdPS), une variante des PS, utilisent un algorithme standardisé afin de sélectionner les covariables pour lesquelles ils vont ajuster. L’utilisation de cet algorithme pourrait permettre l’ajustement de tous les types de facteurs confondants. Cette thèse a pour but d’évaluer la performance de l’hdPS vis-à-vis le biais d’indication dans le contexte d’une étude observationnelle examinant l’effet diabétogénique potentiel des statines. Dans un premier temps, nous avons examiné si l’exposition aux statines était associée au risque de diabète. Les résultats de ce premier article suggèrent que l’exposition aux statines est associée avec une augmentation du risque de diabète et que cette relation est dose-dépendante et réversible dans le temps. Suite à l’identification de cette association, nous avons examiné dans un deuxième article si l’hdPS permettait un meilleur ajustement pour le biais d’indication que le PS; cette évaluation fut entreprise grâce à deux approches: 1) en fonction des mesures d’association ajustées et 2) en fonction de la capacité du PS et de l’hdPS à sélectionner des sous-cohortes appariées de patients présentant des caractéristiques similaires vis-à-vis 19 caractéristiques lorsqu’ils sont utilisés comme critère d’appariement. Selon les résultats présentés dans le cadre du deuxième article, nous avons démontré que l’évaluation de la performance en fonction de la première approche était non concluante, mais que l’évaluation en fonction de la deuxième approche favorisait l’hdPS dans son ajustement pour le biais d’indication. Le dernier article de cette thèse a cherché à examiner la performance de l’hdPS lorsque des facteurs confondants connus et mesurés sont masqués à l’algorithme de sélection. Les résultats de ce dernier article indiquent que l’hdPS pourrait, au moins partiellement, ajuster pour des facteurs confondants masqués et qu’il pourrait donc potentiellement ajuster pour des facteurs confondants non mesurés. Ensemble ces résultats indiquent que l’hdPS serait supérieur au PS dans l’ajustement pour le biais d’indication et supportent son utilisation lors de futures études observationnelles basées sur des données médico-administratives., Propensity scores (PS) are frequently used to adjust for confounders leading to indication bias. However, PS are limited by the fact that they can only adjust for measured and known confounders. High-dimensional propensity scores (hdPS), a specific type of PS, select which variables they adjust for by means of a standardized selection algorithm. Thanks to the use of this selection algorithm, hdPS could potentially adjust for all type of confounders. This thesis aims to evaluate the hdPS’s performance in the adjustment for indication bias in the context of an observational study focussing on the potential diabetogenic effect of statins. The first article’s aim was to identify if the exposure to statins was associated with the risk of diabetes. Results of this article suggest that exposure to statins is associated with an increase in the risk of diabetes and that this association is dose-dependent and reversible in nature. After having identified this association, we examined if the hdPS outperforms the PS in the adjustment for indication bias. Both methods’ performance were compared by means of the obtained adjusted measures of associations and by means of the standardized differences regarding 19 characteristics following the creation of two matched sub-cohorts (each matched on either patients’ PS or patients’ hdPS). Results of this second article identify that the performance of either method could not be differentiated by means of the first approach but that, based on the second approach, the hdPS outperforms the PS in its adjustment for indication bias. The last article aimed to evaluate if the hdPS could adjust for known confounders which were hidden to the selection algorithm. Results of this third article suggest that the hdPS method can adjust for at least some hidden confounders and that it could potentially adjust for some unmeasured confounders. As a whole, this thesis suggests that the hdPS method could be superior to the PS method in its ability to adjust for indication bias and supports its use in future observational studies using medico-administrative databases.