skip to main content

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (NSF-PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 11:00 PM ET on Thursday, June 13 until 2:00 AM ET on Friday, June 14 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Title: An inverse probability weighted regression method that accounts for right‐censoring for causal inference with multiple treatments and a binary outcome
Summary

Comparative effectiveness research often involves evaluating the differences in the risks of an event of interest between two or more treatments using observational data. Often, the post‐treatment outcome of interest is whether the event happens within a pre‐specified time window, which leads to a binary outcome. One source of bias for estimating the causal treatment effect is the presence of confounders, which are usually controlled using propensity score‐based methods. An additional source of bias is right‐censoring, which occurs when the information on the outcome of interest is not completely available due to dropout, study termination, or treatment switch before the event of interest. We propose an inverse probability weighted regression‐based estimator that can simultaneously handle both confounding and right‐censoring, calling the method CIPWR, with the letter C highlighting the censoring component. CIPWR estimates the average treatment effects by averaging the predicted outcomes obtained from a logistic regression model that is fitted using a weighted score function. The CIPWR estimator has a double robustness property such that estimation consistency can be achieved when either the model for the outcome or the models for both treatment and censoring are correctly specified. We establish the asymptotic properties of the CIPWR estimator for conducting inference, and compare its finite sample performance with that of several alternatives through simulation studies. The methods under comparison are applied to a cohort of prostate cancer patients from an insurance claims database for comparing the adverse effects of four candidate drugs for advanced stage prostate cancer.

 
more » « less
NSF-PAR ID:
10442548
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  ;  
Publisher / Repository:
Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Statistics in Medicine
Volume:
42
Issue:
20
ISSN:
0277-6715
Page Range / eLocation ID:
p. 3699-3715
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. We consider comparative effectiveness research (CER) from observational data with two or more treatments. In observational studies, the estimation of causal effects is prone to bias due to confounders related to both treatment and outcome. Methods based on propensity scores are routinely used to correct for such confounding biases. A large fraction of propensity score methods in the current literature consider the case of either two treatments or continuous outcome. There has been extensive literature with multiple treatment and binary outcome, but interest often lies in the intersection, for which the literature is still evolving. The contribution of this article is to focus on this intersection and compare across methods, some of which are fairly recent. We describe propensity‐based methods when more than two treatments are being compared, and the outcome is binary. We assess the relative performance of these methods through a set of simulation studies. The methods are applied to assess the effect of four common therapies for castration‐resistant advanced‐stage prostate cancer. The data consist of medical and pharmacy claims from a large national private health insurance network, with the adverse outcome being admission to the emergency room within a short time window of treatment initiation.

     
    more » « less
  2. Summary

    The problem of estimating the average treatment effects is important when evaluating the effectiveness of medical treatments or social intervention policies. Most of the existing methods for estimating the average treatment effect rely on some parametric assumptions about the propensity score model or the outcome regression model one way or the other. In reality, both models are prone to misspecification, which can have undue influence on the estimated average treatment effect. We propose an alternative robust approach to estimating the average treatment effect based on observational data in the challenging situation when neither a plausible parametric outcome model nor a reliable parametric propensity score model is available. Our estimator can be considered as a robust extension of the popular class of propensity score weighted estimators. This approach has the advantage of being robust, flexible, data adaptive, and it can handle many covariates simultaneously. Adopting a dimension reduction approach, we estimate the propensity score weights semiparametrically by using a non-parametric link function to relate the treatment assignment indicator to a low-dimensional structure of the covariates which are formed typically by several linear combinations of the covariates. We develop a class of consistent estimators for the average treatment effect and study their theoretical properties. We demonstrate the robust performance of the estimators on simulated data and a real data example of investigating the effect of maternal smoking on babies’ birth weight.

     
    more » « less
  3. When analyzing bivariate outcome data, it is often of scientific interest to measure and estimate the association between the bivariate outcomes. In the presence of influential covariates for one or both of the outcomes, conditional association measures can quantify the strength of association without the disturbance of the marginal covariate effects, to provide cleaner and less‐confounded insights into the bivariate association. In this work, we propose estimation and inferential procedures for assessing the conditional Kendall's tau coefficient given the covariates, by adopting the quantile regression and quantile copula framework to handle marginal covariate effects. The proposed method can flexibly accommodate right censoring and be readily applied to bivariate survival data. It also facilitates an estimator of the conditional concordance measure, namely, a conditionalindex, where the unconditionalindex is commonly used to assess the predictive capacity for survival outcomes. The proposed method is flexible and robust and can be easily implemented using standard software. The method performed satisfactorily in extensive simulation studies with and without censoring. Application of our methods to two real‐life data examples demonstrates their desirable practical utility.

     
    more » « less
  4. Abstract

    Estimating population‐level effects of a vaccine is challenging because there may be interference, that is, the outcome of one individual may depend on the vaccination status of another individual. Partial interference occurs when individuals can be partitioned into groups such that interference occurs only within groups. In the absence of interference, inverse probability weighted (IPW) estimators are commonly used to draw inference about causal effects of an exposure or treatment. Tchetgen Tchetgen and VanderWeele proposed a modified IPW estimator for causal effects in the presence of partial interference. Motivated by a cholera vaccine study in Bangladesh, this paper considers an extension of the Tchetgen Tchetgen and VanderWeele IPW estimator to the setting where the outcome is subject to right censoring using inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW). Censoring weights are estimated using proportional hazards frailty models. The large sample properties of the IPCW estimators are derived, and simulation studies are presented demonstrating the estimators' performance in finite samples. The methods are then used to analyze data from the cholera vaccine study.

     
    more » « less
  5. The statistical practice of modeling interaction with two linear main effects and a product term is ubiquitous in the statistical and epidemiological literature. Most data modelers are aware that the misspecification of main effects can potentially cause severe type I error inflation in tests for interactions, leading to spurious detection of interactions. However, modeling practice has not changed. In this article, we focus on the specific situation where the main effects in the model are misspecified as linear terms and characterize its impact on common tests for statistical interaction. We then propose some simple alternatives that fix the issue of potential type I error inflation in testing interaction due to main effect misspecification. We show that when using the sandwich variance estimator for a linear regression model with a quantitative outcome and two independent factors, both the Wald and score tests asymptotically maintain the correct type I error rate. However, if the independence assumption does not hold or the outcome is binary, using the sandwich estimator does not fix the problem. We further demonstrate that flexibly modeling the main effect under a generalized additive model can largely reduce or often remove bias in the estimates and maintain the correct type I error rate for both quantitative and binary outcomes regardless of the independence assumption. We show, under the independence assumption and for a continuous outcome, overfitting and flexibly modeling the main effects does not lead to power loss asymptotically relative to a correctly specified main effect model. Our simulation study further demonstrates the empirical fact that using flexible models for the main effects does not result in a significant loss of power for testing interaction in general. Our results provide an improved understanding of the strengths and limitations for tests of interaction in the presence of main effect misspecification. Using data from a large biobank study “The Michigan Genomics Initiative”, we present two examples of interaction analysis in support of our results.

     
    more » « less