LAUSR

New user designs restricting to treatment initiators have become the preferred design for studying drug comparative safety and effectiveness using non-experimental data. This design reduces confounding by indication and healthy adherer bias at the cost of smaller study sizes and reduced external validity, particularly when assessing a newly approved treatment compared to standard treatment. The prevalent new user design includes adopters of a new treatment who switched from or previously used standard treatment (i.e. the comparator), expanding study sample size and potentially broadening the study population for inference. Previous work has suggested the use of time conditional propensity score matching to mitigate prevalent user bias. In this study, we describe three "types" of initiators of a treatment: new users, direct switchers, and delayed switchers. Using these initiator types, we articulate the causal questions answered by the prevalent new user design and compare them to those answered by the new user design. We then show, using simulation, how conditioning on time since initiating the comparator (rather than full treatment history) can still result in a biased estimate of the treatment effect. When implemented properly, the prevalent new user design estimates new and important causal effects distinct from the new user design.