Novembre Dicembre 2023 - In depth review

Review and Practical Excursus of the Propensity Score: Low Protein Diet Compared to Mediterranean Diet in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease

Abstract

Although Randomized clinical trials (RCT) represent the gold standard to compare two or more treatments, the impact of observational studies cannot be ignored. Obviously, these latter are performed on unbalanced sample, and differences among the compared groups could be detected. These differences could have an impact on the estimated association between our allocation and our outcome. To avoid it, some methods should be applied in the analysis of observational cohort.
Propensity score (PS) can be considered as a value which sums up and balances the known variables. It aims to adjust or balance the probability of receiving a specific allocation group, and could be used to match, stratify, weight, and perform a covariate adjustment. PS is calculated with a logistic regression, using allocation groups as the outcome. Thanks to PS, we compute the probability of being allocated to one group and we can match patients obtaining two balanced groups. It avoids computing analysis in unbalanced groups.
We compared low protein diet (LPD) and the Mediterranean diet in CKD patients and analysed them using the PS methods. Nutritional therapy is fundamental for the prevention, progression and treatment of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) and its complications. An individualized, stepwise approach is essential to guarantee high adherence to nutritional patterns and to reach therapeutic goals. The best dietary regimen is still a matter of discussion.  In our example, unbalanced analysis showed a significant renal function preservation in LPD, but this correlation was denied after the PS analysis.
In conclusion, although unmatched analysis showed differences between the two diets, after propensity analysis no differences were detected. If RCT cannot be performed, balancing the PS score allows to balance the sample and avoids biased results.

Keywords: Chronic Kidney Disease, Low Protein Diet, Matching, Mediterranean Diet, Nutritional Therapy, Propensity Score, Randomized Clinical Trials

Introduction

Clinical investigations are mainly categorized in observational and interventional studies, the latter including randomized controlled trials (RCT) [1]. Comparative effectiveness studies belong to the family of observational studies and aim to compare two active treatments to identify which one is more efficient in improving the time course of a disease or reducing the risk of a given condition in real life (i.e., in a context different from an RCT) [2]. From this perspective, this type of study design differs from RCTs because the latter specifically contemplate ‘no intervention’ (i.e., the placebo arm).

Treatments are candidates to be investigated by a study of comparative effectiveness only when the same treatment was proved to be effective versus a control in an RCT. The main reason why these studies are considered with caution by the scientific community is the lack of randomization, which implies that the results of these studies are prone to a peculiar type of bias called ‘confounding by indication’ [3]. In a given treatment-outcome pathway, a confounder is a variable that is associated with the treatment (i.e., it differs between the study arms). It is not an effect of the treatment, does not lie in the causal pathway between the treatment and the outcome, and represents a risk factor for the outcome. In real life, a confounder can increase, reduce, or definitely obscure the true effect of treatment on an outcome. Despite these challenges, observational studies of effectiveness offer opportunities to examine questions impossible to be investigated by RCTs [4]. First, they can be used to examine the effectiveness of medication that has already obtained marketing authorization and for which funding for further trials may be limited. Second, they can allow the examination of effectiveness for rare treatment indications. Third, a large observational study can be more representative of a clinical population and less prone to selection bias than a trial. 

La visualizzazione dell’intero documento è riservata a Soci attivi, devi essere registrato e aver eseguito la Login con utente e password.