A plasmode simulation-based bias analysis for residual confounding by unmeasured variables leveraging information-rich subsets
Desai, R. J.; Wang, S.; Pillai, H. S.; Mahesri, M.; Gu, B.; Lii, J.; Dutcher, S. K.; Jones, C.; Shebl, F. M.; Bradley, M. C.; Hua, W.; Lee, H.; Dal Pan, G. J.; Ball, R.; Schneeweiss, S. S.
Show abstract
BackgroundQuantitative bias analyses often rely on unrealistic assumptions and do not fully reflect the complexities of healthcare data. MethodsWe describe a plasmode simulation-based bias analysis for residual confounding from unmeasured variables by leveraging granular information from a subset of cohort members. We generated 500 simulated cohorts based on individual-level claims and linked electronic health record (EHR) data identifying new users of varenicline and bupropion from the Mass General Brigham site of the FDA Sentinel Real World Evidence Data Enterprise. Two adverse outcomes were simulated: 1) neuropsychiatric hospitalizations and 2) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and measured confounding factors, identified from information available in claims including demographics, comorbid conditions, and comedications, were tailored to each outcome. Residual confounding was simulated using potential confounders measured in EHRs but unmeasured in claims including suicidal ideation for the neuropsychiatric outcomes and body mass index (BMI), blood pressure (BP), and smoking pack-years for the MACE outcome. These simulations retained the correlation between claims and EHR-based confounders observed in empirical data for realistic reflection of proxy adjustment of unmeasured confounders. Analyses were conducted in simulated data with and without adjustment for the EHR-based covariates to evaluate the extent of residual confounding in claims-only analyses. ResultsAfter 500 simulations, the median absolute standardized mean difference (ASMD) between treatment groups in the unadjusted sample was 0.16 for suicidal ideation; while <0.1 for BMI, BP, and smoking pack-years. For both outcomes, adjustment using claims-based variables provided relative bias close to 0, leading to the conclusion that EHR-measured confounders that were unmeasured in claims were unlikely to result in strong residual confounding within realistic simulations informed by empirical data. ConclusionThe proposed approach provides a method for quantifying bias in non-randomized studies threatened by unavailability of potentially important confounding variables. Key pointsO_LIResidual confounding by unmeasured factors is a central threat in pharmacoepidemiology that is almost always acknowledged in published studies but seldom quantified. C_LIO_LIWe describe a plasmode-simulation based approach to systematically design quantitative bias analyses that reflect the complexities of routinely collected healthcare data by leveraging detailed electronic health records from a subset. C_LIO_LIWe provide open-source software code to enable other researchers to adopt this method in future studies and improve the reliability of their findings. C_LI Plain language summaryThis study introduces a new way for researchers to better understand and measure bias caused by missing health information in large insurance databases. Using detailed hospital records alongside insurance claims data, we created realistic computer simulations to test how much of the observed risk in safety studies could be explained away by missing important health factors, like depression or smoking habits, that arent always recorded in insurance data. The approach is flexible, uses real patient data, and helps researchers make stronger, more reliable conclusions about risks and benefits of treatments, even when some patient information is not available in all records.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Bias amplification of unobserved confounding in pharmacoepidemiological studies using indication-based sampling: there is no free lunch in restricting the sample to those with a particular drug-indication 93%
- Benzodiazepine Initiation Effect on Mortality Among Medicare Beneficiaries Post Acute Ischemic Stroke 92%
- Using quantitative bias analysis to adjust for misclassification of COVID-19 outcomes: An applied example of inhaled corticosteroids and COVID-19 outcomes 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Analyses using multiple imputation need to consider missing data in auxiliary variables 93%
- Spatiotemporal Forecasting of Opioid-related Fatal Overdoses: Towards Best Practices for Modeling and Evaluation 91%
- Depression at the intersection of race/ethnicity, sex/gender, and sexual orientation in a nationally representative sample of US adults: A design-weighted MAIHDA 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Contribution of Health Behaviors to Depression Risk across Birth Cohorts 92%
- Negative Control Exposures: Causal effect Identifiability and Use in Probabilistic-Bias and Bayesian Analyses with Unmeasured Confounders 91%
- Assessing Direct and Spillover Effects of Intervention Packages in Network-Randomized Studies 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Continuous-Time and Dynamic Suicide Attempt Risk Prediction with Neural Ordinary Differential Equations 94%
- Exploring the Feasibility of Using Real-World Data from a Large Clinical Data Research Network to Simulate Clinical Trials of Alzheimer’s Disease 91%
- Personalized Mood Prediction from Patterns of Behavior Collected with Smartphones 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- A data-driven pipeline to extract potential side effects through co-prescription analysis: application to a cohort study of 2,010 patients taking hydroxychloroquine with an 11-year follow-up 92%
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 92%
- Quantitative bias analysis in practice: Review of software for regression with unmeasured confounding 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.