View
228
Download
2
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Are exposures associated with disease?
Epidemiology matters: a new introduction to methodological foundationsChapter 6
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 1 2
Seven steps
1. Define the population of interest2. Conceptualize and create measures of exposures and health
indicators3. Take a sample of the population4. Estimate measures of association between exposures and health
indicators of interest5. Rigorously evaluate whether the association observed suggests a
causal association6. Assess the evidence for causes working together7. Assess the extent to which the result matters, is externally valid, to
other populations
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 3
1. Associations
2. Ratio measures
3. Difference measures
4. Population attributable risk proportion
5. Summary
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 4
1. Associations
2. Ratio measures
3. Difference measures
4. Population attributable risk proportion
5. Summary
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 5
Associations
First we start with measures of disease occurrence and frequency
Association now involves the comparison of two measures
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 6
Example: Farrlandia associations
Farrlandia population 10,000 people without heart disease Follow population for 5 years 3,000 people smoke 410 of smokers develop heart disease No loss to follow-up or change in smoking status
over time
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 7
Example: Farrlandia associations
Risk of heart disease among 3,000 smokers and 7,000 non-smokers, over 5 years
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 8
Example: Farrlandia risk
Incidence (risk) Risk of disease among exposed
(smokers)diseased smokers
population at baseline
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 9
Example: Farrlandia risk
Incidence (risk) Risk of disease among unexposed
(non-smokers) diseased non-smokers population at baseline
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 10
Example: Farrlandia risk
Incidence of heart disease among smokers = 13.7%Incidence of heart disease among non-smokers = 5%
How much larger is 13.7% than 5%?Is the difference between 13.7% and 5% meaningful?
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 11
1. Associations
2. Ratio measures
3. Difference measures
4. Population attributable risk proportion
5. Summary
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 12
Ratios
A way to quantify the magnitude of difference between two measures of disease
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 13
Ratios Risk ratios 95% confidence interval for a risk ratio Example of 95% confidence intervals for a risk ratio Central Limit Theory assumptions and confidence
intervals Rate ratios Odds ratios 95% confidence interval for the odds ratio
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 14
Risk ratio
Numerator Conditional risk of disease among exposed
Denominator Conditional risk of disease among unexposed
15Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6
a b a+b
c d c+d
a+c b+d a+b+c+d
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 16
Risk ratio
NumeratorRisk of disease in exposed
DenominatorRisk of disease in unexposed
aa+b
cc+d
=
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 17
Disease incidence over time
Non-diseased Diseased
Exposed Unexposed
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 18
Disease incidence over time
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 19
Disease incidence over time
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 20
Disease incidence over time
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 21
2 x 2 table
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 22
Risk ratio
NumeratorRisk of disease in exposed
DenominatorRisk of disease in unexposed
aa+b
cc+d
=
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 23
2 x 2 table
8---10
--------5---10
Risk ratio = = 1.6
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 24
2 x 2 table
a---
a+b--------
c---
c+d
Risk ratio =
8---10
--------5---10
Risk ratio =
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 25
Risk ratio interpretation
Ratios > 1.0 indicate rate is higher among exposed than unexposed
Ratios = 1.0 indicate no association Ratios < 1.0 indicate rate is lower among
exposed than unexposed
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 26
Risk ratio95% confidence interval
Sample, by chance, will often not represent exact disease and exposure experience of population
Confidence intervals help to understand variability in study estimates due to chance in sampling process
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 27
Steps: risk ratio95% confidence interval
1. Take natural log of risk ratioln (Risk ratio)
2. Estimate standard error (SE)
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 28
Steps: risk ratio95% confidence interval
3. Estimate upper and lower bounds on log scale 95% confidence interval upper bound
ln(Risk ratio) + 1.96(SE[ln(Risk ratio)]) 95% confidence interval lower bound
ln(Risk ratio) - 1.96(SE[ln(Risk ratio)])
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 29
Steps: risk ratio95% confidence interval
4. Exponentiate upper and lower bounds5. Report and interpret estimate and confidence
intervalSample: In these data, the exposed individuals
had [risk ratio estimate] times the risk of the outcome compared with the unexposed, with a 95% confidence interval for the observed risk ratio ranging from [lower bound] to [upper bound].
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 30
Example: risk ratio95% confidence interval
Measure association between family history of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and incidence of AD among those aged >70
Random sample of 1,000 individuals aged >70, no symptoms of AD
Followed for 20 years Measure symptoms of AD every year No losses to follow-up
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 31
Example: risk ratio95% confidence interval
a---
a+b--------
c---
c+d
Risk ratio =
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 32
Example: risk ratio95% confidence interval
1. Take natural log of risk ratioln (Risk ratio) = ln(1.548) =
0.4372. Estimate standard error (SE)
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 33
Example: risk ratio95% confidence interval
3. Estimate upper and lower bounds on log scale 95% confidence interval upper bound
ln(Risk ratio) + 1.96(SE[ln(Risk ratio)])
0.437 + 1.96(0.1796) 95% confidence interval lower bound
ln(Risk ratio) - 1.96(SE[ln(Risk ratio)])
0.437 - 1.96(0.1796)
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 34
Steps: risk ratio95% confidence interval
4. Exponentiate upper and lower bounds
5. Report and interpret estimate and confidence intervalIndividuals >70 in Farrlandia with a family history of AD had 1.55 times the risk of developing AD over 20 years, with a 95% confidence interval for the risk ratio of 1.09 to 2.20.
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 35
Central Limit Theory
Validity of confidence interval relies on Central Limit Theory (CLT)
Remember, assumptions of CLT Large sample size Each cell in 2 x 2 ≥ 5
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 36
Rate ratio
Risk ratios ideal with little or no loss to follow-up Most studies have substantial loss to follow-up Rate ratio more accurate representation of
incidence when loss to follow-up an issue
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 37
Rate ratio
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 38
Rate ratio
NumeratorRate of disease in exposed
DenominatorRate of disease in unexposed
=
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 39
Rate ratio interpretation
Similar to risk ratio Ratios > 1.0 indicate rate is higher among
exposed than unexposed Ratios = 1.0 indicate no association Ratios < 1.0 indicate rate is lower among
exposed than unexposed
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 40
Steps: rate ratio95% confidence interval
1. Take natural log of rate ratioln (Rate ratio)
2. Estimate standard error (SE)
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 41
Steps: rate ratio95% confidence interval
3. Estimate upper and lower bounds on log scale 95% confidence interval upper bound
ln(Rate ratio) + 1.96(SE[ln(Rate ratio)]) 95% confidence interval lower bound
ln(Rate ratio) - 1.96(SE[ln(Rate ratio)])
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 42
Steps: rate ratio95% confidence interval
4. Exponentiate upper and lower bounds5. Report and interpret estimate and confidence
intervalSample: In these data, the exposed individuals had [rate ratio estimate] times the
rate of the outcome compared with the unexposed, with a 95% confidence interval for the observed rate ratio ranging from [lower bound] to [upper bound].
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 43
Odds ratio
Appropriate measure of association for prospective study is risk or rate ratio
If sample individuals with and without disease and retrospectively assess exposure status, appropriate measure of association is odds ratio
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 44
Example AResearch question: Is smoking cigarettes during pregnancy a potential cause of offspring attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)?Sample: Recruit 5,000 women during pregnancy who are smokers,
and 5,000 women during pregnancy who are not smokers in Farrlandia
Prospective study Assume no loss to follow-upMeasures: Follow offspring at age 10 and determine which children developed ADHD and which did not
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 45
Example A: risk ratioa---
a+b--------
c---
c+d
Risk ratio =
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 46
Example A: risk ratio interpretation
From the prospective study, offspring of women who smoked in pregnancy have 1.5 times the risk of developing ADHD over 10 years compared to offspring of women who did not smoke in pregnancy.
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 47
Odds ratio
Numerator Odds of disease in exposed
Denominator Odds of disease in unexposed
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 48
Example A: odds ratio
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 49
Example A: odds ratio
Odds of ADHD among exposed
Odds of ADHD among unexposed
Odds ratio
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 50
Example A: odds ratiointerpretation
The odds of developing ADHD in the first 10 years of life among those exposed are 1.53 times the odds of disease in the unexposed.
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 51
Example A: odds and risk ratio
Odds ratio = 1.53 Risk ratio = 1.5 Ratios similar when outcome is relatively rare
in the population
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 52
Example B: odds ratioResearch question: Is smoking cigarettes during pregnancy a potential cause of offspring attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)?
Sample:
500 10-year-old children in Farrlandia who are seeking care hyperactivity
For each child we find with ADHD, we select two children of the same age from the same physician offices who present for routine well visits (do not have ADHD) – a purposive sample
Case control study
Measures: Mothers respond to questions, including whether they smoked cigarettes while they were pregnant
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 53
Example B: odds ratio
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 54
Example B: odds ratio
Odds of exposure among those with ADHD:
Odds of exposure among those without ADHD:
Odds ratio in the case control study:
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 55
Example B: odds ratiointerpretation
The odds of exposure (mother smoking in pregnancy) among those with ADHD are 1.53 times higher among cases than among controls.
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 56
Example A and B: odds ratios
Odds ratio in prospective cohort study = 1.53 Odds ratio in case control study = 1.48
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 57
Odds ratio: why we use it (1) Exposure odds ratio and disease odds ratio are mathematically equal!
In the prospective study, we estimated the odds of disease among exposed and odds of disease among unexposed
In the case control study, we estimated the odds of exposure among the diseased and the odds of exposure among the nondiseased.
When we select our cases and controls correctly, we get an unbiased estimate of the exposure odds even though we estimate the disease odds.
This odds ratio is approximately equivalent to the risk ratio when the disease is rare.
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 58
Odds ratio: why we use it (2)
“When we select our cases and controls correctly”…– In our example, cases and controls were selected from
the same underlying population base as the sample from the prospective study.
– When cases and controls are selected from the same population base, we can get the same estimate of the association between exposure and disease from the case control study that we would have gotten from a prospective study from the same population base.
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 59
Steps: odds ratio95% confidence interval
1. Take natural log of odds ratioln (Odds ratio)
2. Estimate standard error (SE)
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 60
Steps: odds ratio95% confidence interval
3. Estimate upper and lower bounds on log scale 95% confidence interval upper bound
ln(Odds ratio) + 1.96(SE[ln(Odds ratio)]) 95% confidence interval lower bound
ln(Odds ratio) - 1.96(SE[ln(Odds ratio)])
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 61
Steps: odds ratio95% confidence interval
4. Exponentiate upper and lower bounds5. Report and interpret estimate and confidence
intervalSample: In these data, the exposed individuals
had [odds ratio estimate] times the odds of the outcome compared with the exposed, with a 95% confidence interval for the observed odds ratio ranging from [lower bound] to [upper bound].
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 62
Summary: odds ratio
Cannot estimate the risk of disease directly when we sample people based on whether they have the disease or not (case control study)
Can estimate proportion exposed among diseased and non-diseased Estimate odds ratio for exposure Odds ratio for exposure = odds ratio for disease
If disease is rare in population, the odds ratio approximates the risk ratio from a prospective study
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 63
1. Associations
2. Ratio measures
3. Difference measures
4. Population attributable risk proportion
5. Summary
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 64
Risk difference
Difference between two risks =
Interpretation: Excess risk due to the exposureExample: If the risk of disease is 10 per 100,000 in the unexposed and 15 per 100,000 in the exposed, then 5 per 100,000 cases is associated with the exposure of interest.
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6
Example: Nutrition and obesity
Research question: Are nutrition classes in middle school associated with the development of obesity in adolescence?
Sample:
Middle school A, 400 students, receives health education (intervention)
Middle school B, 300 students, in neighboring district, does not receive health nutrition class
Purposive
Measures: Schools collect students’ height and weight yearly for 5 years
65
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 66
Example: risk difference
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 67
Example: risk difference Incidence proportion (or risk) of obesity among those who had
nutrition class = 0.175 or 17.5% Incidence proportion (or risk) of obesity among those who did not
have nutrition class = 0.33 or 33% Risk difference
Incidence proportion of exposed – incidence proportion of unexposed
0.175 – 0.33= - 0.155 Interpretation: There are approximately 15.5 fewer cases of obesity
during adolescence for every 100 adolescents associated with nutrition class in middle school
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 68
Steps: risk difference95% confidence interval
1. Estimate standard error (SE)
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 69
Steps: risk difference95% confidence interval
2. Estimate upper and lower bounds 95% confidence interval upper bound
Risk difference + 1.96(SE[Risk difference]) 95% confidence interval lower bound
Risk difference - 1.96(SE[Risk difference])
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 70
Steps: risk difference95% confidence interval
3. Report and interpret estimate and confidence interval
Sample Positive: In these data, exposure was associated with an excess of [risk difference estimate] cases compared with the unexposed, with a 95% confidence interval for the observed excess cases ranging from [lower bound] to [upper bound].
Sample Negative: In these data, exposure was associated with an [risk difference estimate] fewer cases compared with the unexposed, with a 95% confidence interval for the observed decrease in cases ranging from [lower bound] to [upper bound].
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 71
Example: risk difference95% confidence interval
1. Estimate standard error (SE)
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 72
Example: risk difference95% confidence interval
2. Estimate upper and lower bounds 95% confidence interval upper bound
Risk difference + 1.96(SE[Risk difference])
- 0.155 + 1.96(0.02) = -0.1158 95% confidence interval lower bound
Risk difference - 1.96(SE[Risk difference])
- 0.155 - 1.96(0.02) = -0.1942
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 73
Example: risk difference95% confidence interval
3. Report and interpret estimate and confidence interval Negative: Middle high nutrition
education is associated with 15.5 fewer cases of obesity per 100 adolescents over five years, with a 95% confidence interval for the observed decrease in cases from 11.6 to 19.4 fewer cases.
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 74
Rate difference Difference between two rates
Interpretation: Similar to risk difference; excess rate due to the exposure Example: If the rate of disease is 8 per 100,000 person years in the
exposed and 4 per 100,000 person years in the unexposed, then 4 per 100,000 person-years of exposure is associated with the exposure of interest
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 75
Steps: rate difference95% confidence interval
1. Estimate standard error (SE)PY1 = total person time contributed among exposedPY2 = total person time contributed among the unexposed
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 76
Steps: rate difference95% confidence interval
2. Estimate upper and lower bounds 95% confidence interval upper bound
Rate difference + 1.96(SE[Rate difference]) 95% confidence interval lower bound
Rate difference - 1.96(SE[Rate difference])
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 77
Steps: rate difference95% confidence interval
3. Report and interpret estimate and confidence interval
Sample Positive: In these data, exposure was associated with an increases of [rate difference estimate] in the rate compared with the unexposed, with a 95% confidence interval for the observed excess rate ranging from [lower bound] to [upper bound].
Sample Negative: In these data, exposure was associated with an decrease of [rate difference estimate] in the rate compared with the unexposed, with a 95% confidence interval for the observed decrease in the rate ranging from [lower bound] to [upper bound].
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 78
Risk/rate differencesRisk/rate ratios
When is a ratio measure appropriate versus a difference measure? Why would we use one over the other?
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 79
Risk/rate differencesRisk/rate ratios
Difference measures (risk / rate difference) provide a measure of the potential direct public health benefit of intervention.
Ratio measures (risk / rate / odds ratio) provide an intuitive summary of the magnitude of differences in two exposures.
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 80
1. Associations
2. Ratio measures
3. Difference measures
4. Population attributable risk proportion
5. Summary
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 81
Population attributable risk proportion (PARP)
Population attributable fraction Measure of the proportion of the total disease
burden associated with exposure
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 82
Example: PARP
Proportion of people who develop heart disease among smokers and nonsmokers
Risk of heart disease in smokers = 13.7% Risk of heart disease in nonsmokers = 5% PARP would be calculated as:
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 83
Example PARP
Interpretation A: 64% of the heart disease in the population of Farrlandia is potentially attributable to smoking.
Interpretation B: If we were to convince all of the smokers to quit, we would reduce the incidence of heart disease by 64%.
PARP is particularly useful measure in public health practice
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 6 84
1. Associations
2. Ratio measures
3. Difference measures
4. Population attributable risk proportion
5. Summary
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 1 85
Seven steps
1. Define the population of interest2. Conceptualize and create measures of exposures and health
indicators3. Take a sample of the population4. Estimate measures of association between exposures and health
indicators of interest5. Rigorously evaluate whether the association observed suggests a
causal association6. Assess the evidence for causes working together7. Assess the extent to which the result matters, is externally valid, to
other populations
Epidemiology Matters – Chapter 1 86
epidemiologymatters.org
Recommended