Risk factor adjustment in marginal structural model estimation of optimal treatment regimes

The effect of error-in-confounders on the estimation of the causal parameter when using marginal structural models and inverse probability-of-treatment weights: a simulation study

We performed an empirical study to evaluate the effect of mismeasured continuous confounders on the estimation of the causal parameter when using marginal structural models and inverse probability-of-treatment weighting. By executing an extensive simulation using 500 randomly generated parameter value combinations within a defined space, we observed the well-understood effects of attenuation and augmentation, and two unanticipated effects: null effects and sign reversals. We implemented a secondary empirical study to further investigate the sign reversal effect. We use the results of our study to identify conceptual similarities between the analytic and empirical results for multivariable linear and logistic regression, and our empirical results. Through this synthesis, we have been able to suggest feasible directions of research as well as outline the form of expected results.

Application of marginal structural models in pharmacoepidemiologic studies: a systematic review

PURPOSE

We systematically reviewed pharmacoepidemiologic studies published in 2012 that used inverse probability weighted (IPW) estimation of marginal structural models (MSM) to estimate the effect from a time-varying treatment.

METHODS

Potential studies were retrieved through a citation search within Web of Science and a keyword search within PubMed. Eligibility of retrieved studies was independently assessed by at least two reviewers. One reviewer performed data extraction, and a senior epidemiologist confirmed the extracted information for all eligible studies.

RESULTS

Twenty pharmacoepidemiologic studies were eligible for data extraction. The majority of reviewed studies did not report whether the positivity assumption was checked. Six studies performed intention-to-treat analyses, but none of them reported adherence levels after treatment initiation. Eight studies chose an as-treated analytic strategy, but only one of them reported modeling the multiphase of treatment use. Almost all studies performing as-treated analyses chose the most recent treatment status as the functional form of exposure in the outcome model. Nearly half of the studies reported that the IPW estimate was substantially different from the estimate derived from a standard regression model.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of IPW method to control for time-varying confounding is increasing in medical literature. However, reporting of the application of the technique is variable and suboptimal. It may be prudent to develop best practices in reporting complex methods in epidemiologic research.

Making valid causal inferences from observational data

The ability to make strong causal inferences, based on data derived from outside of the laboratory, is largely restricted to data arising from well-designed randomized control trials. Nonetheless, a number of methods have been developed to improve our ability to make valid causal inferences from data arising from observational studies. In this paper, I review concepts of causation as a background to counterfactual causal ideas; the latter ideas are central to much of current causal theory. Confounding greatly constrains causal inferences in all observational studies. Confounding is a biased measure of effect that results when one or more variables, that are both antecedent to the exposure and associated with the outcome, are differentially distributed between the exposed and non-exposed groups. Historically, the most common approach to control confounding has been multivariable modeling; however, the limitations of this approach are discussed. My suggestions for improving causal inferences include asking better questions (relates to counterfactual ideas and "thought" trials); improving study design through the use of forward projection; and using propensity scores to identify potential confounders and enhance exchangeability, prior to seeing the outcome data. If time-dependent confounders are present (as they are in many longitudinal studies), more-advanced methods such as marginal structural models need to be implemented. Tutorials and examples are cited where possible.

An information criterion for marginal structural models

Marginal structural models were developed as a semiparametric alternative to the G-computation formula to estimate causal effects of exposures. In practice, these models are often specified using parametric regression models. As such, the usual conventions regarding regression model specification apply. This paper outlines strategies for marginal structural model specification and considerations for the functional form of the exposure metric in the final structural model. We propose a quasi-likelihood information criterion adapted from use in generalized estimating equations. We evaluate the properties of our proposed information criterion using a limited simulation study. We illustrate our approach using two empirical examples. In the first example, we use data from a randomized breastfeeding promotion trial to estimate the effect of breastfeeding duration on infant weight at 1 year. In the second example, we use data from two prospective cohorts studies to estimate the effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy on CD4 count in an observational cohort of HIV-infected men and women. The marginal structural model specified should reflect the scientific question being addressed but can also assist in exploration of other plausible and closely related questions. In marginal structural models, as in any regression setting, correct inference depends on correct model specification. Our proposed information criterion provides a formal method for comparing model fit for different specifications.

Estimating the Causal Effect of Low Tidal Volume Ventilation on Survival in Patients with Acute Lung Injury

Acute lung injury (ALI) is a condition characterized by acute onset of severe hypoxemia and bilateral pulmonary infiltrates. ALI patients typically require mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit. Low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV), a time-varying dynamic treatment regime, has been recommended as an effective ventilation strategy. This recommendation was based on the results of the ARMA study, a randomized clinical trial designed to compare low vs. high tidal volume strategies (The Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network, 2000) . After publication of the trial, some critics focused on the high non-adherence rates in the LTVV arm suggesting that non-adherence occurred because treating physicians felt that deviating from the prescribed regime would improve patient outcomes. In this paper, we seek to address this controversy by estimating the survival distribution in the counterfactual setting where all patients assigned to LTVV followed the regime. Inference is based on a fully Bayesian implementation of Robins' (1986) G-computation formula. In addition to re-analyzing data from the ARMA trial, we also apply our methodology to data from a subsequent trial (ALVEOLI), which implemented the LTVV regime in both of its study arms and also suffered from non-adherence.