Extension of Disease Risk Score–Based Confounding Adjustments for Multiple Outcomes of Interest: An Empirical Evaluation

Abstract Use of disease risk score (DRS)–based confounding adjustment when estimating treatment effects on multiple outcomes is not well studied. We designed an empirical cohort study to compare dabigatran initiators and warfarin initiators with respect to risks of ischemic stroke and major bleeding in 12 sequential monitoring periods (90 days each), using data from the Truven Marketscan database (Truven Health Analytics, Ann Arbor, Michigan). We implemented 2 approaches to combine DRS for multiple outcomes: 1) 1:1 matching on prognostic propensity scores (PPS), created using DRS for bleeding and stroke as independent variables in a propensity score (PS) model; and 2) simultaneous 1:1 matching on DRS for bleeding and stroke using Mahalanobis distance (M-distance), and compared their performance with that of traditional PS matching. M-distance matching appeared to produce more stable results in the early marketing period than both PPS and traditional PS matching; hazard ratios from unadjusted analysis, traditional PS matching, PPS matching, and M-distance matching after 4 periods were 0.72 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51, 1.03), 0.61 (95% CI: 0.31, 1.09), 0.55 (95% CI: 0.33, 0.91), and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.45, 1.34), respectively, for stroke and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.80), 0.78 (95% CI: 0.60, 1.01), 0.75 (95% CI: 0.59, 0.96), and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.95), respectively, for bleeding. In later periods, estimates were similar for traditional PS matching and M-distance matching but suggested potential residual confounding with PPS matching. These results suggest that M-distance matching may be a valid approach for extension of DRS-based confounding adjustments for multiple outcomes of interest.