Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

LocalControl: An R Package for Comparative Safety and Effectiveness Research.

ABSTRACT: The LocalControl R package implements novel approaches to address biases and confounding when comparing treatments or exposures in observational studies of outcomes. While designed and appropriate for use in comparative safety and effectiveness research involving medicine and the life sciences, the package can be used in other situations involving outcomes with multiple confounders. LocalControl is an open-source tool for researchers whose aim is to generate high quality evidence using observational data. The package implements a family of methods for non-parametric bias correction when comparing treatments in observational studies, including survival analysis settings, where competing risks and/or censoring may be present. The approach extends to bias-corrected personalized predictions of treatment outcome differences, and analysis of heterogeneity of treatment effect-sizes across patient subgroups.

SUBMITTER: Lauve NR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8330612 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

LocalControl: An R Package for Comparative Safety and Effectiveness Research.

Lauve Nicolas R NR Nelson Stuart J SJ Young S Stanley SS Obenchain Robert L RL Lambert Christophe G CG

Journal of statistical software 20201129 4

The <b>LocalControl</b> R package implements novel approaches to address biases and confounding when comparing treatments or exposures in observational studies of outcomes. While designed and appropriate for use in comparative safety and effectiveness research involving medicine and the life sciences, the package can be used in other situations involving outcomes with multiple confounders. <b>LocalControl</b> is an open-source tool for researchers whose aim is to generate high quality evidence u ...[more]

PMID: 34349611

Similar Datasets

Role of practice-based research networks in comparative effectiveness research.

Project description:Comparative effectiveness research fundamentally reorients how clinical evidence is generated and used with the goal of providing actionable information to decision-makers. To achieve this, it is vital that decision-makers and the research enterprise are engaged from research inception, to evidence generation and translation. Practice-based research networks are affiliated clinicians in diverse communities with the goal of conducting research to improve care. Practice-based research networks have the potential to advance all phases of the comparative effectiveness research cycle. The aim of this paper is to explore current and potential roles of practice-based research networks in conducting comparative effectiveness research.

| S-EPMC3478766 | biostudies-literature

PAYER PERSPECTIVES ON FUTURE ACCEPTABILITY OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS AND RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH.

Project description:ObjectivesOur objective was to gather perspectives from payers on how comparative effectiveness research (CER) in the United States and relative effectiveness (RE) research in Europe will impact evidentiary standards for access decisions of new drugs by 2020.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with fourteen senior officials representing public and private payers, health technology assessment groups, and pricing and reimbursement bodies in the United States and Europe. An online survey assessed current use of CER/RE evidence and potential trends that might influence its use for decision making by 2020. A semi-structured interview elicited payers' definitions of CER/RE and was structured around four hypothetical cases resembling drugs expected to be more common or poised to create policy challenges by 2020. Topics included acceptance of study designs and analytic methods associated with CER/RE. A systematic content review was done to extract relevant information.ResultsAccording to key informants, randomization will remain an essential component for assessing comparative or relative effectiveness. They anticipate greater use of policy levers such as conditional reimbursement or prior authorization to manage diffusion of new drugs. Case studies provided important insights into situations when certain types of CER evidence may be acceptable (e.g., observational data when differences between drugs are largely convenience).ConclusionsIndustry perceptions that CER/RE will change payers' evidentiary requirements in the future are consistent with our findings. Growing investment in payers' own data and increased reliance on policy tools to control diffusion of new drugs may also influence the type of evidence industry will be required to produce by 2020.

| S-EPMC4505735 | biostudies-literature

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Dabigatran and Rivaroxaban in Atrial Fibrillation Patients.

Project description:We aimed to examine the comparative effectiveness and safety between dabigatran and rivaroxaban in atrial fibrillation patients.We conducted a population-based, retrospective, new-user cohort study based on the National Health Insurance claims database in Taiwan. Adult atrial fibrillation patients who initiated dabigatran (N=10 625) or rivaroxaban (N=4609) between June 1, 2012 and May 31, 2014 were identified as the overall population. A propensity score was derived using logistic regression to model the probability of receipt of rivaroxaban as a function of potential confounders. Altogether, 4600 dabigatran users were matched with 4600 rivaroxaban users to create a propensity score-matched population. The marginal proportional hazards model was applied among the propensity score-matched population as the primary analysis, and the proportional hazards model with adjustment of the quintiles of the propensity score among the overall population was used as the secondary analysis. Rivaroxaban users had a higher risk of all-cause death than dabigatran users (hazard ratio 1.44, 95%CI 1.17-1.78 in the primary analysis and hazard ratio 1.47, 95%CI 1.23-1.75 in the secondary analysis). Rivaroxaban users also possessed a higher risk of gastrointestinal hemorrhage needing transfusion than dabigatran users in the primary analysis (hazard ratio 1.41, 95%CI 1.02-1.95), but the difference diminished in the secondary analysis (hazard ratio 1.20, 95%CI 0.92-1.56). The risks of ischemic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, arterial embolism/thrombosis, and intracranial hemorrhage were similar between the 2 groups.Rivaroxaban therapy was associated with a statistically significant increase in all-cause death compared with dabigatran therapy in atrial fibrillation patients.

| S-EPMC5533025 | biostudies-other

Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research.

Project description:BackgroundThe Institute of Medicine recently recommended that comparative effectiveness research (CER) should involve input from consumers. While systematic reviews are a major component of CER, little is known about consumer involvement.ObjectiveTo explore current approaches to involving consumers in US-based and key international organizations and groups conducting or commissioning systematic reviews ('organizations').DesignIn-depth, semi-structured interviews with key informants and review of organizations' websites.Setting and participantsSeventeen highly regarded US-based and international (Cochrane Collaboration, Campbell Collaboration) organizations.ResultsOrganizations that usually involve consumers (seven of 17 in our sample) involve them at a programmatic level in the organization or in individual reviews through one-time consultation or on-going collaboration. For example, consumers may suggest topics, provide input on the key questions of the review, provide comments on draft protocols and reports, serve as co-authors or on an advisory group. Organizations involve different types of consumers (individual patients, consumer advocates, families and caregivers), recruiting them mainly through patient organizations and consumer networks. Some offer training in research methods, and one developed training for researchers on how to involve consumers. Little formal evaluation of the effects of consumer involvement is being carried out.ConclusionsConsumers are currently involved in systematic reviews in a variety of ways and for various reasons. Assessing which approaches are most effective in achieving different aims of consumer involvement is now required to inform future recommendations on consumer involvement in CER.

| S-EPMC5060681 | biostudies-literature

Evaluating possible confounding by prescriber in comparative effectiveness research.

Project description:In nonrandomized studies of comparative effectiveness of medications, the prescriber may be the most important determinant of treatment assignment, yet the majority of analyses ignore the prescriber. Via Monte Carlo simulation, we evaluated the bias of 3 approaches that utilize the prescriber in analysis compared against the default approach that ignores the prescriber. Prescriber preference instrumental variable (IV) analyses were unbiased when IV criteria were met, which required no clustering of unmeasured patient characteristics within prescriber. In all other scenarios, IV analyses were highly biased, and stratification on the prescriber reduced confounding bias at the patient or prescriber levels. Including a prescriber random intercept in the propensity score model reversed the direction of confounding from measured patient factors and resulted in unpredictable changes in bias. Therefore, we recommend caution when using the IV approach, particularly when the instrument is weak. Stratification on the prescriber may be more robust; this approach warrants additional research.

| S-EPMC4347927 | biostudies-literature

The use of comparative effectiveness research to inform policy decisions on the inclusion of bevacizumab for the treatment of macular diseases in Thailand's pharmaceutical benefit package.

Project description:There is increasing impetus to use pharmaceutical interventions, ie, ranibizumab or bevacizumab, for the treatment of particular macular diseases. This paper describes the evidence and decision-making of the National List of Essential Medicines Committee that recently announced the inclusion of bevacizumab for the treatment of macular diseases in its pharmaceutical benefit package. The findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis in this paper indicate that the intravitreal administration of bevacizumab is superior to nonpharmaceutical treatments for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic macular edema (DME), but inconclusive for retinal vein occlusion, given the limited evidence. The study also failed to distinguish among the differences in terms of visual acuity improvement, reduction of central macular thickness, and response to treatment between AMD and DME patients treated with bevacizumab and those treated with ranibizumab. Although bevacizumab was not licensed for AMD and DME, the committee decided to include bevacizumab in the National List of Essential Medicines. It is expected that many patients who are in need of treatment but who are unable to afford the expensive alternative drug, ranibizumab, will be able to receive this effective treatment instead and be prevented from suffering irreversible loss of vision. At the same time, this policy will help generate evidence about the real-life effectiveness and safety profiles of the drug for future policy development in Thailand and other settings.

| S-EPMC3520463 | biostudies-literature

Comparative efficiency research (COMER): meta-analysis of cost-effectiveness studies.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to create a new meta-analysis method for cost-effectiveness studies using comparative efficiency research (COMER).MethodsWe built a new score named total incremental net benefit (TINB), with inverse variance weighting of incremental net benefits (INB). This permits determination of whether an alternative is cost-effective, given a specific threshold (TINB > 0 test). Before validation of the model, the structure of dependence between costs and quality-adjusted life years (QoL) was analysed using copula distributions. The goodness-of-fit of a Spanish prospective observational study (n = 498) was analysed using the Independent, Gaussian, T, Gumbel, Clayton, Frank and Placket copulas. Validation was carried out by simulating a copula distribution with log-normal distribution for costs and gamma distribution for disutilities. Hypothetical cohorts were created by varying the sample size (n: 15-500) and assuming three scenarios (1-cost-effective; 2-non-cost-effective; 3-dominant). The COMER result was compared to the theoretical result according to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the INB, assuming a margin of error of 2,000 and 500 monetary units, respectively.ResultsThe Frank copula with positive dependence (-0.4279) showed a goodness-of-fit sufficient to represent costs and QoL (p-values 0.524 and 0.808). The theoretical INB was within the 95% confidence interval of the TINB, based on 15 individuals with a probability > 80% for scenarios 1 and 2, and > 90% for scenario 3. The TINB > 0 test with 15 individuals showed p-values of 0.0105 (SD: 0.0411) for scenario 1, 0.613 (SD: 0.265) for scenario 2 and < 0.0001 for scenario 3.ConclusionsCOMER is a valid tool for combining cost-effectiveness studies and may be of use to health decision makers.

| S-EPMC4292992 | biostudies-literature

Comparative effectiveness research for antipsychotic medications: how much is enough?

Project description:Second-generation antipsychotics have attracted practitioners' and policy-makers' attention, because of concerns over their health effects and costs. Comparative effectiveness data from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE)-a high-profile National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded study-have been used to argue for restricting coverage for these costly drugs. But concerns about the design of CATIE and its associated cost-effectiveness analysis and uncertainty about the precision of these findings raise questions about this interpretation. Our work suggests that additional research to increase the precision of comparisons of the effectiveness of antipsychotics would be well worth the cost.

| S-EPMC3242475 | biostudies-literature

Stakeholder assessment of comparative effectiveness research needs for Medicaid populations.

Project description:Patients, providers and policy-makers rely heavily on comparative effectiveness research (CER) when making complex, real-world medical decisions. In particular, Medicaid providers and policy-makers face unique challenges in decision-making because their program cares for traditionally underserved populations, especially children, pregnant women and people with mental illness. Because these patient populations have generally been underrepresented in research discussions, CER questions for these groups may be understudied. To address this problem, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality commissioned our team to work with Medicaid Medical Directors and other stakeholders to identify relevant CER questions. Through an iterative process of topic identification and refinement, we developed relevant, feasible and actionable questions based on issues affecting Medicaid programs nationwide. We describe challenges and limitations and provide recommendations for future stakeholder engagement.

| S-EPMC5549719 | biostudies-literature

Falsification Testing of Instrumental Variables Methods for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Project description:ObjectivesTo demonstrate how falsification tests can be used to evaluate instrumental variables methods applicable to a wide variety of comparative effectiveness research questions.Study designBrief conceptual review of instrumental variables and falsification testing principles and techniques accompanied by an empirical application. Sample STATA code related to the empirical application is provided in the Appendix.Empirical applicationComparative long-term risks of sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones for management of type 2 diabetes. Outcomes include mortality and hospitalization for an ambulatory care-sensitive condition. Prescribing pattern variations are used as instrumental variables.ConclusionsFalsification testing is an easily computed and powerful way to evaluate the validity of the key assumption underlying instrumental variables analysis. If falsification tests are used, instrumental variables techniques can help answer a multitude of important clinical questions.

| S-EPMC4799892 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data