Estimating treatment effects from non-overlapping cohorts with application to antimicrobial resistance.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Avi Baraz, Daniel Nevo, Amos Cahan, Tal Brosh-Nissimov, Michal Chowers, Uri Obolski
{"title":"Estimating treatment effects from non-overlapping cohorts with application to antimicrobial resistance.","authors":"Avi Baraz, Daniel Nevo, Amos Cahan, Tal Brosh-Nissimov, Michal Chowers, Uri Obolski","doi":"10.1186/s12874-026-02947-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The positivity assumption, also known as overlap, is one of the key assumptions for causal inference. However, in certain observational studies it does not hold. This work is motivated by such a scenario, where the goal was to compare the effect of ceftriaxone versus cefuroxime treatment on subsequent 3rd generation cephalosporin resistance within one year post-treatment in Gram-negative bacteria among hospitalized patients. Our data consisted of electronic medical records from 24,969 patients hospitalized between 2015-2025 in two hospitals with distinct policies: one prescribed cefuroxime, while the other prescribed ceftriaxone. These prescription policies created two non-overlapping patient cohorts, as each hospital treated patients with either cefuroxime or ceftriaxone. We developed and applied a statistical framework that leverages additional data, for which positivity holds, and clinically driven assumptions, to identify the average treatment effect among these non-overlapping cohorts, without removing any observations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our framework is based on a logistic regression model for the conditional expected bacterial resistance outcome, and it can be applied to any generalized linear model. The model is identifiable under a clinically driven assumption that the effect modification of the hospital on cefazolin equals that of cefuroxime and ceftriaxone, when compared to penicillins. We rely on cefazolin and penicillins being prescribed in both hospitals, and on penicillins inducing negligible resistance to 3rd generation cephalosporins. We also implemented inverse probability of censoring weighting for censored outcomes, and utilized aminoglycoside resistance as a negative control outcome to assess sufficient confounding adjustment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The estimated average treatment effect, on the risk difference scale, of ceftriaxone compared to cefuroxime was 5.83% (95% CI: -2.06%, 13.39%). The conditional odds ratio for ceftriaxone compared to cefuroxime, adjusted for confounders, was 1.31 (95% CI: 0.91, 1.89). No evidence of unmeasured confounding was found using the negative control outcome falsification test.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We develop and apply a statistical framework applicable in settings of non-overlapping cohorts that violate the positivity assumption. Our framework allows identification of the average treatment effect thanks to parametric assumptions about the conditional expected outcome, additional data and clinically driven assumptions. The empirical findings, though not statistically significant, may point to a modest resistance increase with ceftriaxone compared to cefuroxime use; and suggest further research about the preferential use of cefuroxime is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13670598/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-026-02947-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The positivity assumption, also known as overlap, is one of the key assumptions for causal inference. However, in certain observational studies it does not hold. This work is motivated by such a scenario, where the goal was to compare the effect of ceftriaxone versus cefuroxime treatment on subsequent 3rd generation cephalosporin resistance within one year post-treatment in Gram-negative bacteria among hospitalized patients. Our data consisted of electronic medical records from 24,969 patients hospitalized between 2015-2025 in two hospitals with distinct policies: one prescribed cefuroxime, while the other prescribed ceftriaxone. These prescription policies created two non-overlapping patient cohorts, as each hospital treated patients with either cefuroxime or ceftriaxone. We developed and applied a statistical framework that leverages additional data, for which positivity holds, and clinically driven assumptions, to identify the average treatment effect among these non-overlapping cohorts, without removing any observations.

Methods: Our framework is based on a logistic regression model for the conditional expected bacterial resistance outcome, and it can be applied to any generalized linear model. The model is identifiable under a clinically driven assumption that the effect modification of the hospital on cefazolin equals that of cefuroxime and ceftriaxone, when compared to penicillins. We rely on cefazolin and penicillins being prescribed in both hospitals, and on penicillins inducing negligible resistance to 3rd generation cephalosporins. We also implemented inverse probability of censoring weighting for censored outcomes, and utilized aminoglycoside resistance as a negative control outcome to assess sufficient confounding adjustment.

Results: The estimated average treatment effect, on the risk difference scale, of ceftriaxone compared to cefuroxime was 5.83% (95% CI: -2.06%, 13.39%). The conditional odds ratio for ceftriaxone compared to cefuroxime, adjusted for confounders, was 1.31 (95% CI: 0.91, 1.89). No evidence of unmeasured confounding was found using the negative control outcome falsification test.

Conclusions: We develop and apply a statistical framework applicable in settings of non-overlapping cohorts that violate the positivity assumption. Our framework allows identification of the average treatment effect thanks to parametric assumptions about the conditional expected outcome, additional data and clinically driven assumptions. The empirical findings, though not statistically significant, may point to a modest resistance increase with ceftriaxone compared to cefuroxime use; and suggest further research about the preferential use of cefuroxime is needed.

估计非重叠队列对抗菌素耐药性的治疗效果。
背景:积极假设,也称为重叠,是因果推理的关键假设之一。然而,在某些观察性研究中,它并不成立。本研究的目的是比较头孢曲松与头孢呋辛治疗对住院患者治疗后一年内革兰氏阴性菌第三代头孢菌素耐药性的影响。我们的数据包括2015-2025年间在两家医院住院的24,969名患者的电子病历,两家医院的政策不同:一家开头孢呋辛,另一家开头孢曲松。这些处方政策创建了两个不重叠的患者队列,因为每家医院都用头孢呋辛或头孢曲松治疗患者。我们开发并应用了一个统计框架,该框架利用了额外的数据,这些数据是阳性的,以及临床驱动的假设,在不删除任何观察结果的情况下,确定这些非重叠队列的平均治疗效果。方法:我们的框架是基于条件预期细菌耐药结果的逻辑回归模型,它可以应用于任何广义线性模型。在临床驱动的假设下,该模型是可识别的,即与青霉素相比,医院对头孢唑林的效果修改等于头孢呋辛和头孢曲松。我们依靠两家医院开的头孢唑林和青霉素,以及对第三代头孢菌素产生微不足道耐药性的青霉素。我们还对审查结果实施了审查加权的逆概率,并利用氨基糖苷耐药性作为阴性对照结果来评估足够的混杂调整。结果:在风险差异量表上,头孢曲松与头孢呋辛的估计平均治疗效果为5.83% (95% CI: -2.06%, 13.39%)。经混杂因素调整后,头孢曲松与头孢呋辛的条件优势比为1.31 (95% CI: 0.91, 1.89)。使用阴性对照结果证伪检验未发现未测量混杂的证据。结论:我们开发并应用了一个适用于违反积极性假设的非重叠队列设置的统计框架。我们的框架允许识别平均治疗效果,这要归功于关于条件预期结果的参数假设、附加数据和临床驱动假设。经验性发现,虽然没有统计学意义,但可能表明与使用头孢呋辛相比,头孢曲松的耐药性适度增加;并建议需要进一步研究头孢呋辛的优先使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书