Thymectomy for non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis: a propensity score matched study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

The efficacy of thymectomy in patients with non-thymomatous Myasthenia Gravis (MG) is still unclear. Main limitations have been variable outcome definitions, lack of a control group and adjustment for confounding.

Objective

To study the efficacy of thymectomy in achieving remission or minimal manifestation (R/MM) status in patients with non-thymomatous MG.

Methods

Patients with generalized MG and minimum follow-up of 6 months were included. Demographic data and treatments were recorded, as well as the MGFA post-intervention status at the last visit. Propensity scores were used to create a matched cohort of treated and untreated patients. Standard and Bayesian Cox models were used to study treatment effects.

Results

Of 395 patients included, 183(46%) had a thymectomy. Thymectomy patients were younger (p < 0.001), with more females (p < 0.001) and more patients in MGFA classes 4–5 at diagnosis (p = 0.01). A matched cohort of thymectomized patients and controls (n = 98) was created. The hazard ratio (HR) for the matched cohort was 1.9 (CI:1.6-2.3), favoring thymectomy. The predicted R/MM rate was 21% in treated and 6% in controls at 5 years (Absolute difference:15%). A Bayesian Cox model for the matched cohort had an estimated probability of thymectomy efficacy (HR > 1) of 96% using a non-informative prior, and 79% using a skeptical prior.

Discussion

When controlling for potential confounders, thymectomized patients had a higher probability of achieving R/MM status through time compared to controls. This study provides class III evidence of the efficacy of thymectomy in non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis.

Related collections

Most cited references 21

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Regression Modeling Strategies

Frank E. Harrell (2001)

Springer Series in Statistics

0 comments Cited 426 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.

Peter C Austin, Paul Grootendorst, Geoffrey Anderson (2007)

The propensity score--the probability of exposure to a specific treatment conditional on observed variables--is increasingly being used in observational studies. Creating strata in which subjects are matched on the propensity score allows one to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects. There is an ongoing controversy in the literature as to which variables to include in the propensity score model. Some advocate including those variables that predict treatment assignment, while others suggest including all variables potentially related to the outcome, and still others advocate including only variables that are associated with both treatment and outcome. We provide a case study of the association between drug exposure and mortality to show that including a variable that is related to treatment, but not outcome, does not improve balance and reduces the number of matched pairs available for analysis. In order to investigate this issue more comprehensively, we conducted a series of Monte Carlo simulations of the performance of propensity score models that contained variables related to treatment allocation, or variables that were confounders for the treatment-outcome pair, or variables related to outcome or all variables related to either outcome or treatment or neither. We compared the use of these different propensity scores models in matching and stratification in terms of the extent to which they balanced variables. We demonstrated that all propensity scores models balanced measured confounders between treated and untreated subjects in a propensity-score matched sample. However, including only the true confounders or the variables predictive of the outcome in the propensity score model resulted in a substantially larger number of matched pairs than did using the treatment-allocation model. Stratifying on the quintiles of any propensity score model resulted in residual imbalance between treated and untreated subjects in the upper and lower quintiles. Greater balance between treated and untreated subjects was obtained after matching on the propensity score than after stratifying on the quintiles of the propensity score. When a confounding variable was omitted from any of the propensity score models, then matching or stratifying on the propensity score resulted in residual imbalance in prognostically important variables between treated and untreated subjects. We considered four propensity score models for estimating treatment effects: the model that included only true confounders; the model that included all variables associated with the outcome; the model that included all measured variables; and the model that included all variables associated with treatment selection. Reduction in bias when estimating a null treatment effect was equivalent for all four propensity score models when propensity score matching was used. Reduction in bias was marginally greater for the first two propensity score models than for the last two propensity score models when stratification on the quintiles of the propensity score model was employed. Furthermore, omitting a confounding variable from the propensity score model resulted in biased estimation of the treatment effect. Finally, the mean squared error for estimating a null treatment effect was lower when either of the first two propensity scores was used compared to when either of the last two propensity score models was used. Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0 comments Cited 299 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology.

Robert J Glynn, Sebastian Schneeweiss, Til Stürmer (2006)

Use of propensity scores to identify and control for confounding in observational studies that relate medications to outcomes has increased substantially in recent years. However, it remains unclear whether, and if so when, use of propensity scores provides estimates of drug effects that are less biased than those obtained from conventional multivariate models. In the great majority of published studies that have used both approaches, estimated effects from propensity score and regression methods have been similar. Simulation studies further suggest comparable performance of the two approaches in many settings. We discuss five reasons that favour use of propensity scores: the value of focus on indications for drug use; optimal matching strategies from alternative designs; improved control of confounding with scarce outcomes; ability to identify interactions between propensity of treatment and drug effects on outcomes; and correction for unobserved confounders via propensity score calibration. We describe alternative approaches to estimate and implement propensity scores and the limitations of the C-statistic for evaluation. Use of propensity scores will not correct biases from unmeasured confounders, but can aid in understanding determinants of drug use and lead to improved estimates of drug effects in some settings.

0 comments Cited 112 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Carolina Barnett: c.barnetttapia@utoronto.ca

Hans D Katzberg: hans.katzberg@utoronto.ca

Shaf Keshavjee: shaf.keshavjee@uhn.ca

Vera Bril: vera.bril@utoronto.ca

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Orphanet J Rare Dis

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Orphanet J Rare Dis

Title: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1750-1172

Publication date (Electronic): 24 December 2014

Publication date PMC-release: 24 December 2014

Publication date Collection: 2014

Volume: 9

Issue: 1

Electronic Location Identifier: 214

Affiliations

[ ]Division of Neurology - Department of Medicine, University of Toronto and University Health Network, Toronto, Canada

[ ]Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

[ ]Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada

Article

Publisher ID: 214

DOI: 10.1186/s13023-014-0214-5

PMC ID: 4296689

PubMed ID: 25539860

SO-VID: 142e4267-3f47-4e6e-99e7-430f06fae119

License:

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.