Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2013 Feb;22(1):70-96.
doi: 10.1177/0962280211403603. Epub 2011 Oct 19.

Observational data for comparative effectiveness research: an emulation of randomised trials of statins and primary prevention of coronary heart disease

Goodarz Danaei  1 , Luis A García Rodríguez, Oscar Fernández Cantero, Roger Logan, Miguel A Hernán
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Observational data for comparative effectiveness research: an emulation of randomised trials of statins and primary prevention of coronary heart disease

Goodarz Danaei et al. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013 Feb.

Abstract

This article reviews methods for comparative effectiveness research using observational data. The basic idea is using an observational study to emulate a hypothetical randomised trial by comparing initiators versus non-initiators of treatment. After adjustment for measured baseline confounders, one can then conduct the observational analogue of an intention-to-treat analysis. We also explain two approaches to conduct the analogues of per-protocol and as-treated analyses after further adjusting for measured time-varying confounding and selection bias using inverse-probability weighting. As an example, we implemented these methods to estimate the effect of statins for primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) using data from electronic medical records in the UK. Despite strong confounding by indication, our approach detected a potential benefit of statin therapy. The analogue of the intention-to-treat hazard ratio (HR) of CHD was 0.89 (0.73, 1.09) for statin initiators versus non-initiators. The HR of CHD was 0.84 (0.54, 1.30) in the per-protocol analysis and 0.79 (0.41, 1.41) in the as-treated analysis for 2 years of use versus no use. In contrast, a conventional comparison of current users versus never users of statin therapy resulted in a HR of 1.31 (1.04, 1.66). We provide a flexible and annotated SAS program to implement the proposed analyses.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of person-trials in the analysis, THIN ‘trials’ 2000-2006
Figure 2
Figure 2
Adherence to statin treatment by initiation status, THIN ‘trials’ 2000-2006
Figure 3
Figure 3
Impact of excluding varying periods of early follow-up (from 0 to 24 months) on the intention-to-treat hazard ratio (A), and the hazard ratio for continuous use vs. no use (B), THIN ‘trials’ 2000-2006 a aVertical bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Early follow-up was excluded from the outcome model but not from the model used to estimate the IP weights.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Distribution of estimated propensity for treatment initiation by treatment status at the start of the THIN ‘trials’ 2000-2006
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL, Jr., et al. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA. 2003;289(19):2560–72. - PubMed
    1. Detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) National Institute of Heart Lung and Blood; Bethesda: 2002.
    1. Statins for the prevention of cardiovascular events. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; London: 2006.
    1. Gibbons RJ, Gardner TJ, Anderson JL, Goldstein LB, Meltzer N, Weintraub WS, et al. The American Heart Association’s principles for comparative effectiveness research: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2009 Jun 9;119(22):2955–62. - PubMed
    1. Ray WA. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol. 2003 Nov 1;158(9):915–20. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms