Multiply robust generalized estimating equations for cluster randomized trials with missing outcomes

Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) provide a useful framework for estimating marginal regression parameters based on data from cluster randomized trials (CRTs), but they can result in inaccurate parameter estimates when some outcomes are informatively missing. Existing techniques to handle missing outcomes in CRTs rely on correct specification of a propensity score model, a covariate-conditional mean outcome model, or require at least one of these two models to be correct, which can be challenging in practice. In this article, we develop new weighted GEEs to simultaneously estimate the marginal mean, scale, and correlation parameters in CRTs with missing outcomes, allowing for multiple propensity score models and multiple covariate-conditional mean models to be specified. The resulting estimators are consistent provided that any one of these models is correct. An iterative algorithm is provided for implementing this more robust estimator and practical considerations for specifying multiple models are discussed. We evaluate the performance of the proposed method through Monte Carlo simulations and apply the proposed multiply robust estimator to analyze the Botswana Combination Prevention Project, a large HIV prevention CRT designed to evaluate whether a combination of HIV-prevention measures can reduce HIV incidence.

Multiply robust causal inference of the restricted mean survival time difference

The hazard ratio (HR) remains the most frequently employed metric in assessing treatment effects on survival times. However, the difference in restricted mean survival time (RMST) has become a popular alternative to the HR when the proportional hazards assumption is considered untenable. Moreover, independent of the proportional hazards assumption, many comparative effectiveness studies aim to base contrasts on survival probability rather than on the hazard function. Causal effects based on RMST are often estimated via inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). However, this approach generally results in biased results when the assumed propensity score model is misspecified. Motivated by the need for more robust techniques, we propose an empirical likelihood-based weighting approach that allows for specifying a set of propensity score models. The resulting estimator is consistent when the postulated model set contains a correct model; this property has been termed multiple robustness. In this report, we derive and evaluate a multiply robust estimator of the causal between-treatment difference in RMST. Simulation results confirm its robustness. Compared with the IPTW estimator from a correct model, the proposed estimator tends to be less biased and more efficient in finite samples. Additional simulations reveal biased results from a direct application of machine learning estimation of propensity scores. Finally, we apply the proposed method to evaluate the impact of intrapartum group B streptococcus antibiotic prophylaxis on the risk of childhood allergic disorders using data derived from electronic medical records from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and census data from the American Community Survey.

Instrumented difference-in-differences

Unmeasured confounding is a key threat to reliable causal inference based on observational studies. Motivated from two powerful natural experiment devices, the instrumental variables and difference-in-differences, we propose a new method called instrumented difference-in-differences that explicitly leverages exogenous randomness in an exposure trend to estimate the average and conditional average treatment effect in the presence of unmeasured confounding. We develop the identification assumptions using the potential outcomes framework. We propose a Wald estimator and a class of multiply robust and efficient semiparametric estimators, with provable consistency and asymptotic normality. In addition, we extend the instrumented difference-in-differences to a two-sample design to facilitate investigations of delayed treatment effect and provide a measure of weak identification. We demonstrate our results in simulated and real datasets.

Robust causal inference of drug-drug interactions

There is growing interest in developing causal inference methods for multi-valued treatments with a focus on pairwise average treatment effects. Here we focus on a clinically important, yet less-studied estimand: causal drug-drug interactions (DDIs), which quantifies the degree to which the causal effect of drug A is altered by the presence versus the absence of drug B. Confounding adjustment when studying the effects of DDIs can be accomplished via inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), a standard approach originally developed for binary treatments and later generalized to multi-valued treatments. However, this approach generally results in biased results when the propensity score model is misspecified. Motivated by the need for more robust techniques, we propose two empirical likelihood-based weighting approaches that allow for specifying a set of propensity score models, with the second method balancing user-specified covariates directly, by incorporating additional, nonparametric constraints. The resulting estimators from both methods are consistent when the postulated set of propensity score models contains a correct one; this property has been termed multiple robustness. In this paper, we derive two multiply-robust estimators of the causal DDI, and develop inference procedures. We then evaluate their finite sample performance through simulation. The results demonstrate that the proposed estimators outperform the standard IPTW method in terms of both robustness and efficiency. Finally, we apply the proposed methods to evaluate the impact of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RAS-I) on the comparative nephrotoxicity of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and opioids, using data derived from electronic medical records from a large multi-hospital health system.

MULTIPLY ROBUST ESTIMATORS OF CAUSAL EFFECTS FOR SURVIVAL OUTCOMES

Multiply robust estimators of the longitudinal g-formula have recently been proposed to protect against model misspecification better than the standard augmented inverse probability weighted estimator (Rotnitzky et al., 2017; Luedtke et al., 2018). These multiply robust estimators ensure consistency if one of the models for the treatment process or outcome process is correctly specified at each time point. We study the multiply robust estimators of Rotnitzky et al. (2017) in the context of a survival outcome. Specifically, we compare various estimators of the g-formula for survival outcomes in order to 1) understand how the estimators may be related to one another, 2) understand each estimator's robustness to model misspecification, and 3) construct estimators that can be more efficient than others in certain model misspecification scenarios. We propose a modification of the multiply robust estimators to gain efficiency under misspecification of the outcome model by using calibrated propensity scores over non-calibrated propensity scores at each time point. Theoretical results are confirmed via simulation studies, and a practical comparison of these estimators is conducted through an application to the US Veterans Aging Cohort Study.

Estimating the marginal hazard ratio by simultaneously using a set of propensity score models: A multiply robust approach

The inverse probability weighted Cox model is frequently used to estimate the marginal hazard ratio. Its validity requires a crucial condition that the propensity score model be correctly specified. To provide protection against misspecification of the propensity score model, we propose a weighted estimation method rooted in the empirical likelihood theory. The proposed estimator is multiply robust in that it is guaranteed to be consistent when a set of postulated propensity score models contains a correctly specified model. Our simulation studies demonstrate satisfactory finite sample performance of the proposed method in terms of consistency and efficiency. We apply the proposed method to compare the risk of postoperative hospitalization between sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass using data from a large medical claims and billing database. We further extend the development to multisite studies to enable each site to postulate multiple site-specific propensity score models.

Multiply robust estimation of causal quantile treatment effects

In causal inference, often the interest lies in the estimation of the average causal effect. Other quantities such as the quantile treatment effect may be of interest as well. In this article, we propose a multiply robust method for estimating the marginal quantiles of potential outcomes by achieving mean balance in (a) the propensity score, and (b) the conditional distributions of potential outcomes. An empirical likelihood or entropy measure approach can be utilized for estimation instead of inverse probability weighting, which is known to be sensitive to the misspecification of the propensity score model. Simulation studies are conducted across different scenarios of correctness in both the propensity score models and the outcome models. Both simulation results and theoretical development indicate that our proposed estimator is consistent if any of the models are correctly specified. In the data analysis, we investigate the quantile treatment effect of mothers' smoking status on infants' birthweight.

On causal mediation analysis with a survival outcome

Suppose that having established a marginal total effect of a point exposure on a time-to-event outcome, an investigator wishes to decompose this effect into its direct and indirect pathways, also known as natural direct and indirect effects, mediated by a variable known to occur after the exposure and prior to the outcome. This paper proposes a theory of estimation of natural direct and indirect effects in two important semiparametric models for a failure time outcome. The underlying survival model for the marginal total effect and thus for the direct and indirect effects, can either be a marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model, or a marginal structural additive hazards model. The proposed theory delivers new estimators for mediation analysis in each of these models, with appealing robustness properties. Specifically, in order to guarantee ignorability with respect to the exposure and mediator variables, the approach, which is multiply robust, allows the investigator to use several flexible working models to adjust for confounding by a large number of pre-exposure variables. Multiple robustness is appealing because it only requires a subset of working models to be correct for consistency; furthermore, the analyst need not know which subset of working models is in fact correct to report valid inferences. Finally, a novel semiparametric sensitivity analysis technique is developed for each of these models, to assess the impact on inference, of a violation of the assumption of ignorability of the mediator.