Regulatory Considerations in the Design of Comparative Observational Studies Using Propensity Scores

In the evaluation of medical products, including drugs, biological products, and medical devices, comparative observational studies could play an important role when properly conducted randomized, well-controlled clinical trials are infeasible due to ethical or practical reasons. However, various biases could be introduced at every stage and into every aspect of the observational study, and consequently the interpretation of the resulting statistical inference would be of concern. While there do exist statistical techniques for addressing some of the challenging issues, often based on propensity score methodology, these statistical tools probably have not been as widely employed in prospectively designing observational studies as they should be. There are also times when they are implemented in an unscientific manner, such as performing propensity score model selection for a dataset involving outcome data in the same dataset, so that the integrity of observational study design and the interpretability of outcome analysis results could be compromised. In this paper, regulatory considerations on prospective study design using propensity scores are shared and illustrated with hypothetical examples.

[1]  Lilly Q Yue,et al.  Statistical and Regulatory Issues with the Application of Propensity Score Analysis to Nonrandomized Medical Device Clinical Studies , 2007, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[2]  Paul R Rosenbaum,et al.  Rare Outcomes, Common Treatments: Analytic Strategies Using Propensity Scores , 2002, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[3]  D. Rubin,et al.  Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity Score , 1984 .

[4]  D. Rubin For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis , 2008, 0811.1640.

[5]  D. Rubin,et al.  Estimating and Using Propensity Scores with Partially Missing Data , 2000 .

[6]  J. Lunceford,et al.  Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: a comparative study , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  D. Rubin The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  Heng Li,et al.  Statistical and Regulatory Issues in Nonrandomized Medical Device Clinical Studies , 2008, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[9]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[10]  I. Lipkovich,et al.  Propensity score estimation with missing values using a multiple imputation missingness pattern (MIMP) approach , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  Donald Rubin,et al.  Estimating Causal Effects from Large Data Sets Using Propensity Scores , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[12]  D. Rubin Using Propensity Scores to Help Design Observational Studies: Application to the Tobacco Litigation , 2001, Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology.

[13]  Jerome P. Reiter,et al.  Interval estimation for treatment effects using propensity score matching , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  R. D'Agostino Adjustment Methods: Propensity Score Methods for Bias Reduction in the Comparison of a Treatment to a Non‐Randomized Control Group , 2005 .

[15]  J. Avorn,et al.  Variable selection for propensity score models. , 2006, American journal of epidemiology.