Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Adjusting for residual confounding using high-dimensional propensity scores in a study of inhaled corticosteroids and COVID-19 outcomes

View ORCID ProfileMarleen Bokern, John Tazare, View ORCID ProfileChristopher T. Rentsch, View ORCID ProfileJennifer K. Quint, Ian Douglas, Anna Schultze
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.04.25321459
Marleen Bokern
aLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Marleen Bokern
  • For correspondence: marleen.bokern{at}lshtm.ac.uk
John Tazare
aLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher T. Rentsch
aLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Christopher T. Rentsch
Jennifer K. Quint
bFaculty of Medicine, National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jennifer K. Quint
Ian Douglas
aLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anna Schultze
aLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

In pharmacoepidemiologic studies of COVID-19, there were concerns about bias from residual confounding. We applied high-dimensional propensity scores (HDPS) to a case study investigating the role of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in COVID-19 to adjust for unmeasured confounding.

We selected patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on 01 March 2020 from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum, comparing ICS/LABA/(+-LAMA) and LABA/LAMA users. ICS effects on the outcomes COVID-19 hospitalisation and death were assessed through weighted and unweighted Cox proportional hazards models. HDPS were estimated from primary care clinical records, prescriptions and hospitalisations. SNOMED-CT codes and dictionary of medicines and devices codes from CPRD Aurum were mapped to International Classification of Disease 10th revision codes and British National Formulary paragraphs respectively. We estimated propensity scores (PS) combining prespecified and HDPS covariates, selecting the top 100, 250, 500, 750 and 1000 covariates ranked by confounding potential.

When excluding triple therapy users, the conventional PS-weighted estimates showed weak evidence of increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation among ICS users (HR 1.19 (95% CI 0.92-1.54)). Results varied slightly based on the number of covariates included in HDPS (HR using 100 HDPS covariates 1.01 (95% CI 0.76-1.33), HR using 250 HDPS covariates 1.24 (95% CI 0.83-1.87)).

For COVID-19 death, conventional PS-weighted models showed weak evidence of harm of ICS when excluding triple therapy users (HR 1.24 (95% CI 0.87-1.75)). HDPS-weighting moved estimates toward the null, suggesting no effect of ICS (HR using 250 HDPS covariates excluding triple therapy 1.08 (95% CI 0.73- 1.59)).

HDPS may have provided better confounding control for COVID-19 deaths and may be able to partially compensate for suboptimal comparison groups. HDPS results can be sensitive to the number of covariates included, highlighting the importance of sensitivity analyses.

Key points

  • Residual confounding, including residual confounding by indication, is a major concern in pharmacoepidemiologic studies of COVID-19 outcomes.

  • We apply high-dimensional propensity scores (HDPS) to adjust for residual confounding in a case study of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on COVID-19 hospitalisation and death in CPRD Aurum.

  • Conventional PS-weighted analyses suggested harmful effects of ICS on COVID-19 hospitalisation and, to a lesser extent, deaths.

  • HDPS weighted analyses of COVID-19 hospitalisations were sensitive to the number of covariates included, with results moving towards the null for smaller number of covariates and away from the null when including more covariates, while for deaths, estimates moved towards the null consistently.

  • HDPS demonstrated promise in addressing confounding even when comparison groups are suboptimal, but its performance depends on the careful selection and ranking of covariates.

Plain Language Summary A key challenge when researching the effects of medications using electronic health records is accounting for the fact that people who receive different medications often differ in important ways. Such differences, called confounding, is typically accounted for using statistical methods which require researchers to pre-specify all important confounders. A newer method, called high-dimensional propensity scores (HDPS), uses a data-driven approach to select what confounders to account for instead. These methods have not yet been applied to studies of inhaled corticosteroids and COVID-19 outcomes, an area where studies have found conflicting findings. We used electronic health records from the UK to compare the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease taking two different treatments (ICS/LABA and LABA/LAMA) using both conventional and HDPS methods. Our findings showed that HDPS can reduce important differences between patients (confounding), but that the results can be sensitive to the number of covariates included. This demonstrates the value of HDPS and the need for researchers to run their analysis using several different assumptions.

Competing Interest Statement

MPB is funded by a GSK PhD studentship to investigate the application of quantitative bias analysis in observational studies of COVID-19. IJD has unrestricted grants from and shares in GSK. AS is employed by LSHTM on a fellowship funded by GSK. CTR and JQ report no conflicts of interest.

Clinical Protocols

https://catalogues.ema.europa.eu/node/3194/administrative-details

https://www.cprd.com/approved-studies/investigating-biases-observational-studies-inhaled-corticosteroids-and-risk-covid

Funding Statement

MB is funded by a GSK PhD studentship to undertake this work.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study was approved by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 27896) and the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee of the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (approval number: 22_001876).

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

No additional data available. Data management and analysis code and all code lists are available on our GitHub repositories. (https://github.com/bokern/ics_hdps and https://github.com/bokern/ics_covid)

https://github.com/bokern/ics_hdps

https://github.com/bokern/ics_covid

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted February 05, 2025.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Adjusting for residual confounding using high-dimensional propensity scores in a study of inhaled corticosteroids and COVID-19 outcomes
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Adjusting for residual confounding using high-dimensional propensity scores in a study of inhaled corticosteroids and COVID-19 outcomes
Marleen Bokern, John Tazare, Christopher T. Rentsch, Jennifer K. Quint, Ian Douglas, Anna Schultze
medRxiv 2025.02.04.25321459; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.04.25321459
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Adjusting for residual confounding using high-dimensional propensity scores in a study of inhaled corticosteroids and COVID-19 outcomes
Marleen Bokern, John Tazare, Christopher T. Rentsch, Jennifer K. Quint, Ian Douglas, Anna Schultze
medRxiv 2025.02.04.25321459; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.04.25321459

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (430)
  • Allergy and Immunology (756)
  • Anesthesia (221)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (3289)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (364)
  • Dermatology (277)
  • Emergency Medicine (479)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1170)
  • Epidemiology (13365)
  • Forensic Medicine (19)
  • Gastroenterology (898)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (5152)
  • Geriatric Medicine (482)
  • Health Economics (782)
  • Health Informatics (3264)
  • Health Policy (1140)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1190)
  • Hematology (429)
  • HIV/AIDS (1017)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (14624)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (912)
  • Medical Education (476)
  • Medical Ethics (127)
  • Nephrology (522)
  • Neurology (4922)
  • Nursing (262)
  • Nutrition (729)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (883)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (795)
  • Oncology (2520)
  • Ophthalmology (723)
  • Orthopedics (281)
  • Otolaryngology (347)
  • Pain Medicine (323)
  • Palliative Medicine (90)
  • Pathology (543)
  • Pediatrics (1301)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (550)
  • Primary Care Research (556)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (4206)
  • Public and Global Health (7501)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1705)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1012)
  • Respiratory Medicine (980)
  • Rheumatology (479)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (497)
  • Sports Medicine (424)
  • Surgery (548)
  • Toxicology (72)
  • Transplantation (236)
  • Urology (205)