4.6 Article

Use of a marginal structural model to determine the effect of aspirin on cardiovascular mortality in the physicians' health study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 155, 期 11, 页码 1045-1053

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/155.11.1045

关键词

aspirin; bias (epidemiology); cardiovascular diseases; confounding factors (epidemiology); epidemiologic methods; mortality; myocardial infarction

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA-34944, CA-40360] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL34595, HL-26490, HL-58476] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 1982-1988 aspirin component of the Physicians' Health Study, a randomized trial of aspirin and beta-carotene in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer among 22,071 US male physicians, was terminated early primarily because of a statistically extreme 44% reduction in first myocardial infarction, with inadequate precision and no apparent effect on the primary endpoint, cardiovascular death. Because of the demonstrated efficacy of aspirin in secondary prevention of cardiovascular death, nonfatal cardiovascular events may simultaneously be time-dependent confounders and intermediate variables. Aspirin use is strongly influenced by these as well as other diseases, side effects, and cardiovascular risk factors. The authors used a marginal structural model with time-dependent inverse probability weights to estimate the underlying causal effect of aspirin on cardiovascular mortality. Although intention-to-treat analyses found no effect (rate ratio = 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72, 1.38), the estimated causal rate ratio was altered to 0.75 but remained nonsignificant (95% CI: 0.48, 1.16). As-treated analyses suggested a more modest effect of aspirin use (rate ratio = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.25). Although the numbers of cardiovascular deaths were insufficient to evaluate this endpoint definitively, use of such methods holds much potential for controlling time-varying confounders affected by previous exposure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据