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
. 2013 May 7;8(5):e63973.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063973. Print 2013.

Propensity score estimation to address calendar time-specific channeling in comparative effectiveness research of second generation antipsychotics

Affiliations

Propensity score estimation to address calendar time-specific channeling in comparative effectiveness research of second generation antipsychotics

Stacie B Dusetzina et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Channeling occurs when a medication and its potential comparators are selectively prescribed based on differences in underlying patient characteristics. Drug safety advisories can provide new information regarding the relative safety or effectiveness of a drug product which might increase selective prescribing. In particular, when reported adverse effects vary among drugs within a therapeutic class, clinicians may channel patients toward or away from a drug based on the patient's underlying risk for an adverse outcome. If channeling is not identified and appropriately managed it might lead to confounding in observational comparative effectiveness studies.

Objective: To demonstrate channeling among new users of second generation antipsychotics following a Food and Drug Administration safety advisory and to evaluate the impact of channeling on cardiovascular risk estimates over time.

Data source: Florida Medicaid data from 2001-2006.

Study design: Retrospective cohort of adults initiating second generation antipsychotics. We used propensity scores to match olanzapine initiators with other second generation antipsychotic initiators. To evaluate channeling away from olanzapine following an FDA safety advisory, we estimated calendar time-specific propensity scores. We compare the performance of these calendar time-specific propensity scores with conventionally-estimated propensity scores on estimates of cardiovascular risk.

Principal findings: Increased channeling away from olanzapine was evident for some, but not all, cardiovascular risk factors and corresponded with the timing of the FDA advisory. Covariate balance was optimized within period and across all periods when using the calendar time-specific propensity score. Hazard ratio estimates for cardiovascular outcomes did not differ across models (Conventional PS: 0.97, 95%CI: 0.81-3.18 versus calendar time-specific PS: 0.93, 95%CI: 0.77-3.04).

Conclusions: Changes in channeling over time was evident for several covariates but had limited impact on cardiovascular risk estimates, possibly due to unmeasured confounding. Although calendar time-specific propensity scores appear to improve covariate balance, the impact on comparative effectiveness results is limited in this setting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have read the journal's policy and have the following conflicts: Stacie B. Dusetzina: Received funding through a Ruth L. Kirschstein-National Service Research Award Post-Doctoral Traineeship sponsored by NIMH and Harvard Medical School, Department of Health Care Policy, Grant No. T32MH019733-17. The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript for publication. Dr. Dusetzina has no conflicts of interest. Christina D. Mack: Fellowship, Merck; NIH grant R01 AG023178; Consultant to Roche and AHRQ through Outcome, A Quintiles Company. No perceived conflicts of interest. Til Stürmer: R01 AG023178, R01 AG018833 from the National Institute on Aging at the NIH; UNC-DEcIDE center from AHRQ; salary support from Center for Pharmacoepidemiology, Department of Epidemiology, UNC, and unrestricted research and other grants from pharmaceutical companies (GSK, Merck, Sanofi) to UNC. This does not alter the authors' adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sox HC, Greenfield S (2009) Comparative effectiveness research: a report from the Institute of Medicine. Ann oIntern Med 151: 203–205. - PubMed
    1. Hughes MD, Williams PL (2007) Challenges in using observational studies to evaluate adverse effects of treatment. NEJM 356: 1705–1707. - PubMed
    1. Petri H, Urquhart J (1991) Channeling bias in the interpretation of drug effects. Stat Med 10: 577–581. - PubMed
    1. Mack CD, Glynn RJ, Brookhart MA, Carpenter WR, Meyer AM, et al.. (2013) Calendar time-specific propensity scores and comparative effectiveness research for stage III colon cancer chemotherapy. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. DOI: 10.1002/pds.3386. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Amiel JM, Mangurian CV, Ganguli R, Newcomer JW (2008) Addressing cardiometabolic risk during treatment with antipsychotic medications. Curr Opin Psychiatry 21: 613–618. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources