Accounting for Twins and Other Multiple Births in Perinatal Studies Conducted Using Healthcare Administration Data

The analysis of perinatal studies is complicated by twins and other multiple births even when they are not the exposure, outcome, or a confounder of interest. Common approaches to handling multiples in studies of infant outcomes include restriction to singletons, counting outcomes at the pregnancy-level (i.e., by counting if at least one twin experienced a binary outcome), or infant-level analysis including all infants and, typically, accounting for clustering of outcomes by using generalised estimating equations or mixed effects models. Several healthcare administration databases only support restriction to singletons or pregnancy-level approaches. For example, in MarketScan insurance claims data, diagnoses in twins are often assigned to a single infant identifier, thereby preventing ascertainment of infant-level outcomes among multiples. Different approaches correspond to different causal questions, produce different estimands, and often rely on different assumptions. We demonstrate the differences that can arise from these different approaches using Monte Carlo simulations, algebraic formulas, and an applied example. Furthermore, we provide guidance on the handling of multiples in perinatal studies when using healthcare administration data. ### Competing Interest Statement KFH is an investigator on grants to her institution from UCB and Takeda, unrelated to this work. SHD reports being an investigator on research grants to her institution from Takeda and consulting for Moderna, UCB and Jansen; all unrelated to the present study. All other authors report no competing interests. ### Funding Statement This study was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant R01 HD088393. JPB was supported by NIH grant R01 HD097778. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: This study was deemed exempt from review by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Institutional Review Board. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes MarketScan CCAE is a commercial claims insurance database available by commercial license from Merative.