Causal inference for semi-competing risks data

Direct and indirect treatment effects in the presence of semicompeting risks

Semicompeting risks refer to the phenomenon that the terminal event (such as death) can censor the nonterminal event (such as disease progression) but not vice versa. The treatment effect on the terminal event can be delivered either directly following the treatment or indirectly through the nonterminal event. We consider 2 strategies to decompose the total effect into a direct effect and an indirect effect under the framework of mediation analysis in completely randomized experiments by adjusting the prevalence and hazard of nonterminal events, respectively. They require slightly different assumptions on cross-world quantities to achieve identifiability. We establish asymptotic properties for the estimated counterfactual cumulative incidences and decomposed treatment effects. We illustrate the subtle difference between these 2 decompositions through simulation studies and two real-data applications in the Supplementary Materials.

Selection Bias in Health Research: Quantifying, Eliminating, or Exacerbating Health Disparities?

Purpose of review

To summarize recent literature on selection bias in disparities research addressing either descriptive or causal questions, with examples from dementia research.

Recent findings

Defining a clear estimand, including the target population, is essential to assess whether generalizability bias or collider-stratification bias are threats to inferences. Selection bias in disparities research can result from sampling strategies, differential inclusion pipelines, loss to follow-up, and competing events. If competing events occur, several potentially relevant estimands can be estimated under different assumptions, with different interpretations. The apparent magnitude of a disparity can differ substantially based on the chosen estimand. Both randomized and observational studies may misrepresent health disparities or heterogeneity in treatment effects if they are not based on a known sampling scheme.

Conclusion

Researchers have recently made substantial progress in conceptualization and methods related to selection bias. This progress will improve the relevance of both descriptive and causal health disparities research.

A BAYESIAN MACHINE LEARNING APPROACH FOR ESTIMATING HETEROGENEOUS SURVIVOR CAUSAL EFFECTS: APPLICATIONS TO A CRITICAL CARE TRIAL

Assessing heterogeneity in the effects of treatments has become increasingly popular in the field of causal inference and carries important implications for clinical decision-making. While extensive literature exists for studying treatment effect heterogeneity when outcomes are fully observed, there has been limited development in tools for estimating heterogeneous causal effects when patient-centered outcomes are truncated by a terminal event, such as death. Due to mortality occurring during study follow-up, the outcomes of interest are unobservable, undefined, or not fully observed for many participants in which case principal stratification is an appealing framework to draw valid causal conclusions. Motivated by the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network (ARDSNetwork) ARDS respiratory management (ARMA) trial, we developed a flexible Bayesian machine learning approach to estimate the average causal effect and heterogeneous causal effects among the always-survivors stratum when clinical outcomes are subject to truncation. We adopted Bayesian additive regression trees (BART) to flexibly specify separate mean models for the potential outcomes and latent stratum membership. In the analysis of the ARMA trial, we found that the low tidal volume treatment had an overall benefit for participants sustaining acute lung injuries on the outcome of time to returning home but substantial heterogeneity in treatment effects among the always-survivors, driven most strongly by biologic sex and the alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient at baseline (a physiologic measure of lung function and degree of hypoxemia). These findings illustrate how the proposed methodology could guide the prognostic enrichment of future trials in the field.

causalCmprsk: An R package for nonparametric and Cox-based estimation of average treatment effects in competing risks data

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Competing risks data arise in both observational and experimental clinical studies with time-to-event outcomes, when each patient might follow one of the multiple mutually exclusive competing paths. Ignoring competing risks in the analysis can result in biased conclusions. In addition, possible confounding bias of the treatment-outcome relationship has to be addressed, when estimating treatment effects from observational data. In order to provide tools for estimation of average treatment effects on time-to-event outcomes in the presence of competing risks, we developed the R package causalCmprsk. We illustrate the package functionality in the estimation of effects of a right heart catheterization procedure on discharge and in-hospital death from observational data.

METHODS

The causalCmprsk package implements an inverse probability weighting estimation approach, aiming to emulate baseline randomization and alleviate possible treatment selection bias. The package allows for different types of weights, representing different target populations. causalCmprsk builds on existing methods from survival analysis and adapts them to the causal analysis in non-parametric and semi-parametric frameworks.

RESULTS

The causalCmprsk package has two main functions: fit.cox assumes a semiparametric structural Cox proportional hazards model for the counterfactual cause-specific hazards, while fit.nonpar does not impose any structural assumptions. In both frameworks, causalCmprsk implements estimators of (i) absolute risks for each treatment arm, e.g., cumulative hazards or cumulative incidence functions, and (ii) relative treatment effects, e.g., hazard ratios, or restricted mean time differences. The latter treatment effect measure translates the treatment effect from probability into more intuitive time domain and allows the user to quantify, for example, by how many days or months the treatment accelerates the recovery or postpones illness or death.

CONCLUSIONS

The causalCmprsk package provides a convenient and useful tool for causal analysis of competing risks data. It allows the user to distinguish between different causes of the end of follow-up and provides several time-varying measures of treatment effects. The package is accompanied by a vignette that contains more details, examples and code, making the package accessible even for non-expert users.

A sensitivity analysis approach for the causal hazard ratio in randomized and observational studies

The hazard ratio (HR) is often reported as the main causal effect when studying survival data. Despite its popularity, the HR suffers from an unclear causal interpretation. As already pointed out in the literature, there is a built-in selection bias in the HR, because similarly to the truncation by death problem, the HR conditions on post-treatment survival. A recently proposed alternative, inspired by the Survivor Average Causal Effect, is the causal HR, defined as the ratio between hazards across treatment groups among the study participants that would have survived regardless of their treatment assignment. We discuss the challenge in identifying the causal HR and present a sensitivity analysis identification approach in randomized controlled trials utilizing a working frailty model. We further extend our framework to adjust for potential confounders using inverse probability of treatment weighting. We present a Cox-based and a flexible non-parametric kernel-based estimation under right censoring. We study the finite-sample properties of the proposed estimation methods through simulations. We illustrate the utility of our framework using two real-data examples.

Modeling semi-competing risks data as a longitudinal bivariate process

As individuals age, death is a competing risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD) but the reverse is not the case. As such, studies of AD can be placed within the semi-competing risks framework. Central to semi-competing risks, and in contrast to standard competing risks , is that one can learn about the dependence structure between the two events. To-date, however, most methods for semi-competing risks treat dependence as a nuisance and not a potential source of new clinical knowledge. We propose a novel regression-based framework that views the two time-to-event outcomes through the lens of a longitudinal bivariate process on a partition of the time scales of the two events. A key innovation of the framework is that dependence is represented in two distinct forms, local and global dependence, both of which have intuitive clinical interpretations. Estimation and inference are performed via penalized maximum likelihood, and can accommodate right censoring, left truncation, and time-varying covariates. An important consequence of the partitioning of the time scale is that an ambiguity regarding the specific form of the likelihood contribution may arise; a strategy for sensitivity analyses regarding this issue is described. The framework is then used to investigate the role of gender and having ≥1 apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele on the joint risk of AD and death using data from the Adult Changes in Thought study.