ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2025
Applying High-Dimensional Propensity Scores in a Study of Inhaled Corticosteroids and COVID-19 Outcomes.
Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Applying High-Dimensional Propensity Scores in a Study of Inhaled Corticosteroids and COVID-19 Outcomes.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn pharmacoepidemiologic studies of COVID-19, there were concerns about bias from residual confounding. We investigated the effects of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on COVID-19 outcomes, applying high-dimensional propensity scores (HDPS) to adjust for unmeasured confounding.
methodsWe selected patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on 01 March 2020 from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum, comparing ICS/LABA/(+/-LAMA) and LABA/LAMA users. ICS effects on the outcomes COVID-19 hospitalisation and death were assessed through IPT-weighted and unweighted Cox regression. HDPS were estimated from primary care observations, prescriptions and hospitalisations. SNOMED-CT codes and dictionary of medicines and devices codes from CPRD Aurum were mapped to International Classification of Disease 10th revision codes and British National Formulary paragraphs, respectively. We estimated propensity scores (PS) combining prespecified and HDPS covariates, selecting the top 100, 250, 500, 750 and 1000 covariates ranked by confounding potential.
resultsWhen excluding triple therapy users, conventional PS-weighted estimates showed weak evidence of increased COVID-19 hospitalisation risk among ICS users (HR 1.19 [95% CI: 0.92-1.54]). Results varied slightly based on the number of covariates included in HDPS (HR using 100 HDPS covariates excluding triple therapy 1.01 [95% CI: 0.76-1.33], HR using 250 HDPS covariates excluding triple therapy 1.24 [95% CI: 0.83-1.87]). Conventional PS-weighted models showed weak evidence of a harmful association of ICS with COVID-19 death when excluding triple therapy users (HR 1.24 [95% CI: 0.87-1.75]). HDPS-weighting moved estimates toward the null (HR using 250 HDPS covariates excluding triple therapy 1.08 [95% CI: 0.73-1.59]).
conclusionsHDPS may have better controlled confounding for COVID-19 deaths in this case. HDPS results can be sensitive to the number of covariates included, highlighting the importance of sensitivity analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.