An evaluation of three statistical estimation methods for assessing health policy effects on prescription drug claims

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Manish Mittal ; Ph.D.^a ; ¹ ; ² ; ^{manish.mittal@abbvie.com" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; Donald L. Harrison ; Ph.D. ; F.A.Ph.A.^a ; David M. Thompson ; Ph.D.^b ; Michael J. Miller ; R.Ph. ; Dr.P.H. ; F.A.Ph.A.^c ; Kevin C. Farmer ; Ph.D. ; F.A.Ph.A.^a ; Yu-Tze Ng ; M.D. ; F.R.A.C.P.^d ; ³
• 关键词：Generalized linear model ; Generalized estimation equations ; Generalized linear mixed models ; FDA alert ; Antiepileptic drugs
• 刊名：Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：January-February 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：12
• 期：1
• 页码：29-40
• 全文大小：706 K

文摘

While the choice of analytical approach affects study results and their interpretation, there is no consensus to guide the choice of statistical approaches to evaluate public health policy change.

Objectives

This study compared and contrasted three statistical estimation procedures in the assessment of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suicidality warning, communicated in January 2008 and implemented in May 2009, on antiepileptic drug (AED) prescription claims.

Methods

Longitudinal designs were utilized to evaluate Oklahoma (U.S. State) Medicaid claim data from January 2006 through December 2009. The study included 9289 continuously eligible individuals with prevalent diagnoses of epilepsy and/or psychiatric disorder. Segmented regression models using three estimation procedures [i.e., generalized linear models (GLM), generalized estimation equations (GEE), and generalized linear mixed models (GLMM)] were used to estimate trends of AED prescription claims across three time periods: before (January 2006–January 2008); during (February 2008–May 2009); and after (June 2009–December 2009) the FDA warning.

Results

All three statistical procedures estimated an increasing trend (P < 0.0001) in AED prescription claims before the FDA warning period. No procedures detected a significant change in trend during (GLM: −30.0%, 99% CI: −60.0% to 10.0%; GEE: −20.0%, 99% CI: −70.0% to 30.0%; GLMM: −23.5%, 99% CI: −58.8% to 1.2%) and after (GLM: 50.0%, 99% CI: −70.0% to 160.0%; GEE: 80.0%, 99% CI: −20.0% to 200.0%; GLMM: 47.1%, 99% CI: −41.2% to 135.3%) the FDA warning when compared to pre-warning period.

Conclusions

Although the three procedures provided consistent inferences, the GEE and GLMM approaches accounted appropriately for correlation. Further, marginal models estimated using GEE produced more robust and valid population-level estimations.