Utility of automated data-adaptive propensity score method for confounding by indication in comparative effectiveness study in real world Medicare and registry data.

BACKGROUND: Confounding by indication is a serious threat to comparative studies using real world data. We assessed the utility of automated data-adaptive analytic approach for confounding adjustment when both claims and clinical registry data are available. METHODS: We used a comparative study example of carotid artery stenting (CAS) vs. carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in 2005-2008 when CAS was only indicated for patients with high surgical risk. We included Medicare beneficiaries linked to the Society for Vascular Surgery's Vascular Registry >65 years old undergoing CAS/CEA. We compared hazard ratios (HRs) for death while adjusting for confounding by combining various 1) Propensity score (PS) modeling strategies (investigator-specified [IS-PS] vs. automated data-adaptive [ada-PS]); 2) data sources (claims-only, registry-only and claims-plus-registry); and 3) PS adjustment approaches (matching vs. quintiles-adjustment with/without trimming). An HR of 1.0 was used as a benchmark effect estimate based on CREST trial. RESULTS: The cohort included 1,999 CAS and 3,255 CEA patients (mean age 76). CAS patients were more likely symptomatic and at high surgical risk, and experienced higher mortality (crude HR = 1.82 for CAS vs. CEA). HRs from PS-quintile adjustment without trimming were 1.48 and 1.52 for claims-only IS-PS and ada-PS, 1.51 and 1.42 for registry-only IS-PS and ada-PS, and 1.34 and 1.23 for claims-plus-registry IS-PS and ada-PS, respectively. Estimates from other PS adjustment approaches showed similar patterns. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparative effectiveness study of CAS vs. CEA with strong confounding by indication, ada-PS performed better than IS-PS in general, but both claims and registry data were needed to adequately control for bias.

Comparative Effectiveness of Carotid Artery Stenting Versus Carotid Endarterectomy Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Effectiveness of carotid artery stenting (CAS) relative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) among Medicare patients has not been established. We compared effectiveness of CAS versus CEA among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS AND RESULTS: We linked Medicare data (2000-2009) to the Society for Vascular Surgery's Vascular Registry (2005-2008) and the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's (NCDR) Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy Registry (2006-2008/2009). Medicare patients were followed up from procedure date until death, stroke/transient ischemic attack, periprocedural myocardial infarction, or a composite end point for these outcomes. We derived high-dimensional propensity scores using registry and Medicare data to control for patient factors and adjusted for provider factors in a Cox regression model comparing CAS with CEA. Among 5254 Society for Vascular Surgery's Vascular Registry (1999 CAS; 3255 CEA) and 4055 Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy Registry (2824 CAS; 1231 CEA) Medicare patients, CAS patients had a higher comorbidity burden and were more likely to be at high surgical risk (Society for Vascular Surgery's Vascular Registry: 96.7% versus 44.5%; Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy Registry: 71.3% versus 44.7%). Unadjusted outcome risks were higher for CAS. Mortality risks remained elevated for CAS after adjusting for patient-level factors (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.46). After further adjustment for provider factors, differences between CAS and CEA were attenuated or no longer present (hazard ratio for mortality, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.37). Performance was comparable across subgroups defined by sex and degree of carotid stenosis, but there was a nonsignificant trend suggesting a higher risk of adverse outcomes in older (>80) and symptomatic patients undergoing CAS. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes after CAS and CEA among Medicare beneficiaries were comparable after adjusting for both patient- and provider-level factors.