AI Article Synopsis

  • - Evidence on osteoporosis treatments like denosumab and oral bisphosphonates shows variation in effectiveness due to differing populations, clinical practices, and study methodologies, which can affect treatment outcome comparisons.
  • - This study analyzed 280,288 women over 50, comparing denosumab and oral bisphosphonates by using propensity score techniques to ensure the treatment groups were comparable before estimating treatment effects.
  • - Results indicated that achieving balance in observed covariates was generally successful after applying propensity score methods, but some residual confounding was still present, depending on the databases used and analysis methods applied.

Article Abstract

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 yr 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 standardized 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%CI between treatment and NCO were estimated using Cox models. Presence of residual confounding was evaluated with 2 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), except for stratification in DNR (3.8%). 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jbmr/zjae059DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

residual confounding
28
osteoporosis treatments
8
propensity score
8
negative control
8
control outcome
8
clinical practice
8
residual
8
weighting matching
8
matching stratification
8
>5% ncos
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!