Edmund C L Cheung, Min Fan, Celine S L Chui, Angel Y S Wong, John Tazare
{"title":"High-Dimensional Propensity Scores for Mitigating Confounding: Implementation Using Primary and Secondary Care Data in Hong Kong.","authors":"Edmund C L Cheung, Min Fan, Celine S L Chui, Angel Y S Wong, John Tazare","doi":"10.1002/pds.70326","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Confounding is a key concern in observational studies using healthcare databases. The high-dimensional propensity score (HDPS) algorithm is an approach for generating and prioritising proxy variables, leveraging all available information in a database to mitigate residual confounding. This study aims to implement HDPS approaches in a novel setting using primary and secondary data available from Hong Kong (HK).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from HK, we implemented HDPS in a cohort study investigating the use of different antihypertensive drug classes and incident dementia risk. The top 250 HDPS covariates were included in inverse probability of treatment weighting in addition to investigator-specified variables. Diagnostics evaluated the performance of the HDPS. Sensitivity analyses included varying the number of HDPS covariates and removing potentially influential or inappropriate covariates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>434 506 new-users of antihypertensives were included. With a traditional PS approach, no evidence for an association was observed for each antihypertensive comparison. After HDPS implementation, the estimate for beta-blockers shifted from no evidence (Hazard ratio (HR): 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86-1.02) to moderate evidence of a reduced hazard of incident dementia compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.82-0.98). A greater overall covariate balance between comparison groups was achieved after the inclusion of HDPS covariates and potential frailty markers were identified as influential.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We successfully implemented the HDPS in HK data, observing improved covariate balance across a wider set of potential confounders. HDPS also identified possible database-specific frailty markers which could be considered more widely when specifying adjustment variables in this setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"35 2","pages":"e70326"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12833473/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70326","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Confounding is a key concern in observational studies using healthcare databases. The high-dimensional propensity score (HDPS) algorithm is an approach for generating and prioritising proxy variables, leveraging all available information in a database to mitigate residual confounding. This study aims to implement HDPS approaches in a novel setting using primary and secondary data available from Hong Kong (HK).
Methods: Using data from HK, we implemented HDPS in a cohort study investigating the use of different antihypertensive drug classes and incident dementia risk. The top 250 HDPS covariates were included in inverse probability of treatment weighting in addition to investigator-specified variables. Diagnostics evaluated the performance of the HDPS. Sensitivity analyses included varying the number of HDPS covariates and removing potentially influential or inappropriate covariates.
Results: 434 506 new-users of antihypertensives were included. With a traditional PS approach, no evidence for an association was observed for each antihypertensive comparison. After HDPS implementation, the estimate for beta-blockers shifted from no evidence (Hazard ratio (HR): 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86-1.02) to moderate evidence of a reduced hazard of incident dementia compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.82-0.98). A greater overall covariate balance between comparison groups was achieved after the inclusion of HDPS covariates and potential frailty markers were identified as influential.
Conclusions: We successfully implemented the HDPS in HK data, observing improved covariate balance across a wider set of potential confounders. HDPS also identified possible database-specific frailty markers which could be considered more widely when specifying adjustment variables in this setting.
期刊介绍:
The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report.
Particular areas of interest include:
design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology;
comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world;
methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology;
assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy;
patterns of drug utilization;
relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines;
evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.