Citations 1
Comparing Regression Adjustment, Matching, and Inverse Probability Weights in Small Sub-Populations in the HIV SUCCESS Consortium: A Real-World Data Example
Kyle, Ryan P. , Heinke, Dominique, Napravnik, Sonia, Chander, Geetanjali, Baiers, Ross , Cachay, Edward, Kipke, Michele, Moore, Richard D., Mayer, Kenneth H., Parra, Luis, Fredericksen, Rob J., Reisner, Sari, Christopoulos, Katerina , Yendewa, George A., Baum, Marianna, Bamford, Laura, Kitahata, Mari M., Saag, Michael S. , Crane, Heidi M. , Whitney, Bridget M. , Baum, Marianna K. , Drumright, Lydia N , Delaney, Joseph A C , Baum, Marianna , Drumright, Lydia N. , Heinke, Dominique, Napravnik, Sonia , Chander, Geetanjali , Lesko, Catherine R. , Mustanski, Brian , Cachay, Edward R. , Kipke, Michele D. , Mayer, Kenneth, Parra, Luis, Reisner, Sari L. , Christopoulos, Katerina A. , Yendewa, George A. , Delaney, Joseph A.
Substance Use: Research and Treatment | July 16, 2026 | Volume: 20 | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available
Objectives To understand the trade-offs between different statistical modeling approaches, using real world data with small sub-populations, with rare exposures and increasingly rare outcomes. In particular, to compare adjusted regression, inverse probability weighting, and matching. Methods Data for these analyses came from the RADAR (N=1,134) and combined CNICS/JHHCC (N=14,434) cohorts. We estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) for self-reported use of specific substances comparing subpopulations (SP), SP-1 vs SP-3 and SP-2 vs SP-3, where SP-1 was the largest proportion (92% in RADAR, 81% in CNICS/JHHCC), SP2 was moderate proportion (18% in CNICS/JHHCC) and SP-3 was the smallest proportion (8% in RADAR, 1% in CNICS/JHHCC) of the population. We calculated PRs using 1) unadjusted relative risk regression (RR); and adjusted estimates controlling for age, race/ethnicity, study site, and year of interview using: 2) standard adjustment in RR; 3) stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW); and 4) matching with up to 3 matches from SP-1 or SP-2 per SP-3 participant. Results For most substances, all methods yielded consistent estimates. There were large weights in some of the IPTW analyses and in three cases these resulted in substantially divergent estimates. For the comparison between SP-1 and SP-3, the estimate for smoking was 1.3-fold greater in the matched analysis (PR=1.33, 95% CI: 1.02-1.75) than in IPTW (PR=1.03, 95% CI: 0.78-1.37 ATE and PR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.88-1.26 ATT). Even more extreme divergence in estimates was observed for differences between SP-2 and SP-3 with respect to methamphetamine/amphetamine, (IPTW-ATE: PR=1.51, 95% CI: 0.79-2.89; IPTW-ATT: PR=2.36, 95% CI: 1.36-4.12); vs Matching: PR=2.71, 95%CI: 1.47-4.99) and cocaine (IPTW-ATE: PR=1.15, 95% CI: 0.55-2.38; IPTW-ATT: PR=1.81, 95% CI: 1.03-3.18); vs Matching: PR=1.38, 95%CI: 0.76-2.53). Conclusion The combination of a rare exposure and a rare outcome can produce challenges for commonly used confounding adjustment strategies, and it is often best to compare different modeling approaches to gain greater insight.