Two assumptions of the prior event rate ratio approach for controlling confounding can be evaluated by self-controlled case series and dynamic random intercept modeling.

OBJECTIVES

The prior event rate ratio (PERR) is a recently developed approach for controlling confounding by measured and unmeasured covariates in real-world evidence research and observational studies. Despite its rising popularity in studies of safety and effectiveness of biopharmaceutical products, there is no guidance on how to empirically evaluate its model assumptions. We propose two methods to evaluate two of the assumptions required by the PERR, specifically, the assumptions that occurrence of outcome events does not alter the likelihood of receiving treatment, and that earlier event rate does not affect later event rate.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We propose using self-controlled case series (SCCS) and dynamic random intercept modeling (DRIM), respectively, to evaluate the two aforementioned assumptions. A nonmathematical introduction of the methods and their application to evaluate the assumptions are provided. We illustrate the evaluation with secondary analysis of deidentified data on pneumococcal vaccination and clinical pneumonia in The Gambia, West Africa.

RESULTS

SCCS analysis of data on 12,901 vaccinated Gambian infants did not reject the assumption of clinical pneumonia episodes had no influence on the likelihood of pneumococcal vaccination. DRIM analysis of 14,325 infants with a total of 1719 episodes of clinical pneumonia did not reject the assumption of earlier episodes of clinical pneumonia had no influence on later incidence of the disease.

CONCLUSION

The SCCS and DRIM methods can facilitate appropriate use of the PERR approach to control confounding.