TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparing marginal structural models to standard methods for estimating treatment effects of antihypertensive combination therapy
AU - Gerhard, Tobias
AU - Delaney, Joseph A.C.
AU - Cooper-Dehoff, Rhonda M.
AU - Shuster, Jonathan
AU - Brumback, Babette A.
AU - Johnson, Julie A.
AU - Pepine, Carl J.
AU - Winterstein, Almut G.
N1 - Funding Information:
INVEST was funded by a grant from Abbott Laboratories and the University of Florida Opportunity Fund. The present research was supported by cooperative agreement number U18 HS016097 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Dr. Gerhard) and K23HL86558 NIH (NHLBI) (Cooper-DeHoff).
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - Background: Due to time-dependent confounding by blood pressure and differential loss to follow-up, it is difficult to estimate the effectiveness of aggressive versus conventional antihypertensive combination therapies in non-randomized comparisons. Methods. We utilized data from 22,576 hypertensive coronary artery disease patients, prospectively enrolled in the INternational VErapamil-Trandolapril STudy (INVEST). Our post-hoc analyses did not consider the randomized treatment strategies, but instead defined exposure time-dependently as aggressive treatment (≥3 concomitantly used antihypertensive medications) versus conventional treatment (≤2 concomitantly used antihypertensive medications). Study outcome was defined as time to first serious cardiovascular event (non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or all-cause death). We compared hazard ratio (HR) estimates for aggressive vs. conventional treatment from a Marginal Structural Cox Model (MSCM) to estimates from a standard Cox model. Both models included exposure to antihypertensive treatment at each follow-up visit, demographics, and baseline cardiovascular risk factors, including blood pressure. The MSCM further adjusted for systolic blood pressure at each follow-up visit, through inverse probability of treatment weights. Results: 2,269 (10.1%) patients experienced a cardiovascular event over a total follow-up of 60,939 person-years. The HR for aggressive treatment estimated by the standard Cox model was 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.87-1.07). The equivalent MSCM, which was able to account for changes in systolic blood pressure during follow-up, estimated a HR of 0.81 (95% CI 0.71-0.92). Conclusions: Using a MSCM, aggressive treatment was associated with a lower risk for serious cardiovascular outcomes compared to conventional treatment. In contrast, a standard Cox model estimated similar risks for aggressive and conventional treatments. Trial registration. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00133692.
AB - Background: Due to time-dependent confounding by blood pressure and differential loss to follow-up, it is difficult to estimate the effectiveness of aggressive versus conventional antihypertensive combination therapies in non-randomized comparisons. Methods. We utilized data from 22,576 hypertensive coronary artery disease patients, prospectively enrolled in the INternational VErapamil-Trandolapril STudy (INVEST). Our post-hoc analyses did not consider the randomized treatment strategies, but instead defined exposure time-dependently as aggressive treatment (≥3 concomitantly used antihypertensive medications) versus conventional treatment (≤2 concomitantly used antihypertensive medications). Study outcome was defined as time to first serious cardiovascular event (non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or all-cause death). We compared hazard ratio (HR) estimates for aggressive vs. conventional treatment from a Marginal Structural Cox Model (MSCM) to estimates from a standard Cox model. Both models included exposure to antihypertensive treatment at each follow-up visit, demographics, and baseline cardiovascular risk factors, including blood pressure. The MSCM further adjusted for systolic blood pressure at each follow-up visit, through inverse probability of treatment weights. Results: 2,269 (10.1%) patients experienced a cardiovascular event over a total follow-up of 60,939 person-years. The HR for aggressive treatment estimated by the standard Cox model was 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.87-1.07). The equivalent MSCM, which was able to account for changes in systolic blood pressure during follow-up, estimated a HR of 0.81 (95% CI 0.71-0.92). Conclusions: Using a MSCM, aggressive treatment was associated with a lower risk for serious cardiovascular outcomes compared to conventional treatment. In contrast, a standard Cox model estimated similar risks for aggressive and conventional treatments. Trial registration. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00133692.
KW - Blood pressure
KW - Hypertension
KW - Marginal structural models
KW - Time-dependent confounding
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864528094&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864528094&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/1471-2288-12-119
DO - 10.1186/1471-2288-12-119
M3 - Article
C2 - 22866767
AN - SCOPUS:84864528094
SN - 1471-2288
VL - 12
JO - BMC Medical Research Methodology
JF - BMC Medical Research Methodology
M1 - 119
ER -