The proportion of all previous patients was a potential instrument for patients' actual prescriptions of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Assessing the performance of physician's prescribing preference as an instrumental variable in comparative effectiveness research with moderate and small sample sizes: a simulation study

Aim: This simulation study is to assess the utility of physician's prescribing preference (PPP) as an instrumental variable for moderate and smaller sample sizes. Materials & methods: We designed a simulation study to imitate a comparative effectiveness research under different sample sizes. We compare the performance of instrumental variable (IV) and non-IV approaches using two-stage least squares (2SLS) and ordinary least squares (OLS) methods, respectively. Further, we test the performance of different forms of proxies for PPP as an IV. Results: The percent bias of 2SLS is around approximately 20%, while the percent bias of OLS is close to 60%. The sample size is not associated with the level of bias for the PPP IV approach. Conclusion: Irrespective of sample size, the PPP IV approach leads to less biased estimates of treatment effectiveness than OLS adjusting for known confounding only. Particularly for smaller sample sizes, we recommend constructing PPP from long prescribing histories to improve statistical power.

[Secondary Data for Pharmacoepidemiological Research - Making the Best of It!]

Studies using secondary data such as health care claims data are often faced with methodological challenges due to the time-dependence of key quantities or unmeasured confounding. In the present paper, we discuss approaches to avoid or suitably address various sources of potential bias. In particular, we illustrate the target trial principle, marginal structural models, and instrumental variables with examples from the "GePaRD" database. Finally, we discuss the strengths and limitations of record linkage which can sometimes be used to supply missing information.

How to compare instrumental variable and conventional regression analyses using negative controls and bias plots

There is increasing interest in the use of instrumental variable analysis to overcome unmeasured confounding in observational pharmacoepidemiological studies. This is partly because instrumental variable analyses are potentially less biased than conventional regression analyses. However, instrumental variable analyses are less precise, and regulators and clinicians find it difficult to interpret conflicting evidence from instrumental variable compared with conventional regression analyses. In this paper, we describe three techniques to assess which approach (instrumental variable versus conventional regression analyses) is least biased. These techniques are negative control outcomes, negative control populations and tests of covariate balance. We illustrate these methods using an analysis of the effects of smoking cessation therapies (varenicline) prescribed in primary care.