The propensity score--the probability of exposure to a specific treatment conditional on observed variables--is increasingly being used in observational studies. Creating strata in which subjects are matched on the propensity score allows one to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects. There is an ongoing controversy in the literature as to which variables to include in the propensity score model. Some advocate including those variables that predict treatment assignment, while others suggest including all variables potentially related to the outcome, and still others advocate including only variables that are associated with both treatment and outcome. We provide a case study of the association between drug exposure and mortality to show that including a variable that is related to treatment, but not outcome, does not improve balance and reduces the number of matched pairs available for analysis. In order to investigate this issue more comprehensively, we conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations of the performance of propensity score models that contained variables related to treatment allocation, or variables that were confounders for the treatment-outcome pair, or variables related to outcome or all variables related to either outcome or treatment or neither. We compared the use of these different propensity scores models in matching and stratification in terms of the extent to which they balanced variables. We demonstrated that all propensity scores models balanced measured confounders between treated and untreated subjects in a propensity-score matched sample. However, including only the true confounders or the variables predictive of the outcome in the propensity score model resulted in a substantially larger number of matched pairs than did using the treatment-allocation model. Stratifying on the quintiles of any propensity score model resulted in residual imbalance between treated and untreated subjects in the upper and lower quintiles. Greater balance between treated and untreated subjects was obtained after matching on the propensity score than after stratifying on the quintiles of the propensity score. When a confounding variable was omitted from any of the propensity score models, then matching or stratifying on the propensity score resulted in residual imbalance in prognostically important variables between treated and untreated subjects. We considered four propensity score models for estimating treatment effects: the model that included only true confounders; the model that included all variables associated with the outcome; the model that included all measured variables; and the model that included all variables associated with treatment selection. Reduction in bias when estimating a null treatment effect was equivalent for all four propensity score models when propensity score matching was used. Reduction in bias was marginally greater for the first two propensity score models than for the last two propensity score models when stratification on the quintiles of the pr...

Propensity score methods are increasingly being used to estimate causal treatment effects in the medical literature. Conditioning on the propensity score results in unbiased estimation of the expected difference in observed responses to two treatments. The degree to which conditioning on the propensity score introduces bias into the estimation of the conditional odds ratio or conditional hazard ratio, which are frequently used as measures of treatment effect in observational studies, has not been extensively studied. We conducted Monte Carlo simulations to determine the degree to which propensity score matching, stratification on the quintiles of the propensity score, and covariate adjustment using the propensity score result in biased estimation of conditional odds ratios, hazard ratios, and rate ratios. We found that conditioning on the propensity score resulted in biased estimation of the true conditional odds ratio and the true conditional hazard ratio. In all scenarios examined, treatment effects were biased towards the null treatment effect. However, conditioning on the propensity score did not result in biased estimation of the true conditional rate ratio. In contrast, conventional regression methods allowed unbiased estimation of the true conditional treatment effect when all variables associated with the outcome were included in the regression model. The observed bias in propensity score methods is due to the fact that regression models allow one to estimate conditional treatment effects, whereas propensity score methods allow one to estimate marginal treatment effects. In several settings with non-linear treatment effects, marginal and conditional treatment effects do not coincide.

No abstract

Rising pharmaceutical expenditures have led to the use of cost-sharing measures. The authors undertook a systematic review of the effects of cost sharing on vulnerable populations (the poor and those with chronic illnesses). Virtually every article reviewed supports the view that cost sharing decreases the use of prescription drugs in these populations. Copayments or a cap on the monthly number of subsidized prescriptions lower drug costs for the payer, but any savings may be offset by increases in other health care areas. Cost sharing also leads to patients foregoing essential medications and to a decline in health care status.

A major, often unstated, concern of researchers carrying out epidemiological studies of medical therapy is the potential impact on validity if estimates of treatment are biased due to unmeasured confounders. One technique for obtaining consistent estimates of treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounders is instrumental variables analysis (IVA). This technique has been well developed in the econometrics literature and is being increasingly used in epidemiological studies. However, the approach to IVA that is most commonly used in such studies is based on linear models, while many epidemiological applications make use of non-linear models, specifically generalized linear models (GLMs) such as logistic or Poisson regression. Here we present a simple method for applying IVA within the class of GLMs using the generalized method of moments approach. We explore some of the theoretical properties of the method and illustrate its use within both a simulation example and an epidemiological study where unmeasured confounding is suspected to be present. We estimate the effects of beta-blocker therapy on one-year all-cause mortality after an incident hospitalization for heart failure, in the absence of data describing disease severity, which is believed to be a confounder.