Multiple imputation methods for treatment noncompliance and nonresponse in randomized clinical trials

Summary .  Randomized clinical trials are a powerful tool for investigating causal treatment effects, but in human trials there are oftentimes problems of noncompliance which standard analyses, such as the intention-to-treat or as-treated analysis, either ignore or incorporate in such a way that the resulting estimand is no longer a causal effect. One alternative to these analyses is the complier average causal effect (CACE) which estimates the average causal treatment effect among a subpopulation that would comply under any treatment assigned. We focus on the setting of a randomized clinical trial with crossover treatment noncompliance (e.g., control subjects could receive the intervention and intervention subjects could receive the control) and outcome nonresponse. In this article, we develop estimators for the CACE using multiple imputation methods, which have been successfully applied to a wide variety of missing data problems, but have not yet been applied to the potential outcomes setting of causal inference. Using simulated data we investigate the finite sample properties of these estimators as well as of competing procedures in a simple setting. Finally we illustrate our methods using a real randomized encouragement design study on the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine.     

Sensitivity analysis for the assessment of causal vaccine effects on viral load in HIV vaccine trials

Vaccines with limited ability to prevent HIV infection may positively impact the HIV/AIDS pandemic by preventing secondary transmission and disease in vaccine recipients who become infected. To evaluate the impact of vaccination on secondary transmission and disease, efficacy trials assess vaccine effects on HIV viral load and other surrogate endpoints measured after infection. A standard test that compares the distribution of viral load between the infected subgroups of vaccine and placebo recipients does not assess a causal effect of vaccine, because the comparison groups are selected after randomization. To address this problem, we formulate clinically relevant causal estimands using the principal stratification framework developed by Frangakis and Rubin (2002, Biometrics 58, 21-29), and propose a class of logistic selection bias models whose members identify the estimands. Given a selection model in the class, procedures are developed for testing and estimation of the causal effect of vaccination on viral load in the principal stratum of subjects who would be infected regardless of randomization assignment. We show how the procedures can be used for a sensitivity analysis that quantifies how the causal effect of vaccination varies with the presumed magnitude of selection bias.     

Likelihood methods for treatment noncompliance and subsequent nonresponse in randomized trials

While several new methods that account for noncompliance or missing data in randomized trials have been proposed, the dual effects of noncompliance and nonresponse are rarely dealt with simultaneously. We construct a maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) of the causal effect of treatment assignment for a two-armed randomized trial assuming all-or-none treatment noncompliance and allowing for subsequent nonresponse. The EM algorithm is used for parameter estimation. Our likelihood procedure relies on a latent compliance state covariate that describes the behavior of a subject under all possible treatment assignments and characterizes the missing data mechanism as in Frangakis and Rubin (1999, Biometrika 86, 365-379). Using simulated data, we show that the MLE for normal outcomes compares favorably to the method-of-moments (MOM) and the standard intention-to-treat (ITT) estimators under (1) both normal and non-normal data, and (2) departures from the latent ignorability and compound exclusion restriction assumptions. We illustrate methods using data from a trial to compare the efficacy of two antipsychotics for adults with refractory schizophrenia.     

Efficient nonparametric estimation of causal effects in randomized trials with noncompliance

Causal approaches based on the potential outcome framework providea useful tool for addressing noncompliance problems in randomizedtrials. We propose a new estimator of causal treatment effectsin randomized clinical trials with noncompliance. We use theempirical likelihood approach to construct a profile randomsieve likelihood and take into account the mixture structurein outcome distributions, so that our estimator is robust toparametric distribution assumptions and provides substantialfinite-sample efficiency gains over the standard instrumentalvariable estimator. Our estimator is asymptotically equivalentto the standard instrumental variable estimator, and it canbe applied to outcome variables with a continuous, ordinal orbinary scale. We apply our method to data from a randomizedtrial of an intervention to improve the treatment of depressionamong depressed elderly patients in primary care practices.     

The compliance score as a regressor in randomized trials

The compliance score in randomized trials is a measure of the effect of randomization on treatment received. It is in principle a group-level pretreatment variable and so can be used where individual-level measures of treatment received can produce misleading inferences. The interpretation of models with the compliance score as a regressor of interest depends on the link function. Using the identity link can lead to valid inference about the effects of treatment received even in the presence of nonrandom noncompliance; such inference is more problematic for nonlinear links. We illustrate these points with data from two randomized trials.     

A bayesian approach to improved estimation of causal effect predictiveness for a principal surrogate endpoint

Summary The literature on potential outcomes has shown that traditional methods for characterizing surrogate endpoints in clinical trials based only on observed quantities can fail to capture causal relationships between treatments, surrogates, and outcomes. Building on the potential-outcomes formulation of a principal surrogate, we introduce a Bayesian method to estimate the causal effect predictiveness (CEP) surface and quantify a candidate surrogate's utility for reliably predicting clinical outcomes. In considering the full joint distribution of all potentially observable quantities, our Bayesian approach has the following features. First, our approach illuminates implicit assumptions embedded in previously-used estimation strategies that have been shown to result in poor performance. Second, our approach provides tools for making explicit and scientifically-interpretable assumptions regarding associations about which observed data are not informative. Through simulations based on an HIV vaccine trial, we found that the Bayesian approach can produce estimates of the CEP surface with improved performance compared to previous methods. Third, our approach can extend principal-surrogate estimation beyond the previously considered setting of a vaccine trial where the candidate surrogate is constant in one arm of the study. We illustrate this extension through an application to an AIDS therapy trial where the candidate surrogate varies in both treatment arms.     

Identifiability and estimation of causal effects in randomized trials with noncompliance and completely nonignorable missing data

Summary .  In this article, we first study parameter identifiability in randomized clinical trials with noncompliance and missing outcomes. We show that under certain conditions the parameters of interest are identifiable even under different types of completely nonignorable missing data: that is, the missing mechanism depends on the outcome. We then derive their maximum likelihood and moment estimators and evaluate their finite-sample properties in simulation studies in terms of bias, efficiency, and robustness. Our sensitivity analysis shows that the assumed nonignorable missing-data model has an important impact on the estimated complier average causal effect (CACE) parameter. Our new method provides some new and useful alternative nonignorable missing-data models over the existing latent ignorable model, which guarantees parameter identifiability, for estimating the CACE in a randomized clinical trial with noncompliance and missing data.     

Sensitivity analyses comparing outcomes only existing in a subset selected post-randomization, conditional on covariates, with application to HIV vaccine trials

In many experiments, researchers would like to compare between treatments and outcome that only exists in a subset of participants selected after randomization. For example, in preventive HIV vaccine efficacy trials it is of interest to determine whether randomization to vaccine causes lower HIV viral load, a quantity that only exists in participants who acquire HIV. To make a causal comparison and account for potential selection bias we propose a sensitivity analysis following the principal stratification framework set forth by Frangakis and Rubin (2002, Biometrics58, 21-29). Our goal is to assess the average causal effect of treatment assignment on viral load at a given baseline covariate level in the always infected principal stratum (those who would have been infected whether they had been assigned to vaccine or placebo). We assume stable unit treatment values (SUTVA), randomization, and that subjects randomized to the vaccine arm who became infected would also have become infected if randomized to the placebo arm (monotonicity). It is not known which of those subjects infected in the placebo arm are in the always infected principal stratum, but this can be modeled conditional on covariates, the observed viral load, and a specified sensitivity parameter. Under parametric regression models for viral load, we obtain maximum likelihood estimates of the average causal effect conditional on covariates and the sensitivity parameter. We apply our methods to the world's first phase III HIV vaccine trial.     

A causal proportional hazards estimator for the effect of treatment actually received in a randomized trial with all-or-nothing compliance

Survival data from randomized trials are most often analyzed in a proportional hazards (PH) framework that follows the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. When not all the patients on the experimental arm actually receive the assigned treatment, the ITT-estimator mixes its effect on treatment compliers with its absence of effect on noncompliers. The structural accelerated failure time (SAFT) models of Robins and Tsiatis are designed to consistently estimate causal effects on the treated, without direct assumptions about the compliance selection mechanism. The traditional PH-model, however, has not yet led to such causal interpretation. In this article, we examine a PH-model of treatment effect on the treated subgroup. While potential treatment compliance is unobserved in the control arm, we derive an estimating equation for the Compliers PROPortional Hazards Effect of Treatment (C-PROPHET). The jackknife is used for bias correction and variance estimation. The method is applied to data from a recently finished clinical trial in cancer patients with liver metastases.     

Inference for the effect of treatment on survival probability in randomized trials with noncompliance and administrative censoring

In many clinical studies with a survival outcome, administrative censoring occurs when follow-up ends at a prespecified date and many subjects are still alive. An additional complication in some trials is that there is noncompliance with the assigned treatment. For this setting, we study the estimation of the causal effect of treatment on survival probability up to a given time point among those subjects who would comply with the assignment to both treatment and control. We first discuss the standard instrumental variable (IV) method for survival outcomes and parametric maximum likelihood methods, and then develop an efficient plug-in nonparametric empirical maximum likelihood estimation (PNEMLE) approach. The PNEMLE method does not make any assumptions on outcome distributions, and makes use of the mixture structure in the data to gain efficiency over the standard IV method. Theoretical results of the PNEMLE are derived and the method is illustrated by an analysis of data from a breast cancer screening trial. From our limited mortality analysis with administrative censoring times 10 years into the follow-up, we find a significant benefit of screening is present after 4 years (at the 5% level) and this persists at 10 years follow-up.     

Analysis of times to repeated events in two-arm randomized trials with noncompliance and dependent censoring

This article develops randomization-based methods for times to repeated events in two-arm randomized trials with noncompliance and dependent censoring. Structural accelerated failure time models are assumed to capture causal effects on repeated event times and dependent censoring time, but the dependence structure among repeated event times and dependent censoring time is unspecified. Artificial censoring techniques to accommodate nonrandom noncompliance and dependent censoring are proposed. Estimation of the acceleration parameters are based on rank-based estimating functions. A simulation study is conducted to evaluate the performance of the developed methods. An illustration of the methods using data from an acute myeloid leukemia trial is provided.     

A comparison of eight methods for the dual-endpoint evaluation of efficacy in a proof-of-concept HIV vaccine trial

To support the design of the world's first proof-of-concept (POC) efficacy trial of a cell-mediated immunity-based HIV vaccine, we evaluate eight methods for testing the composite null hypothesis of no-vaccine effect on either the incidence of HIV infection or the viral load set point among those infected, relative to placebo. The first two methods use a single test applied to the actual values or ranks of a burden-of-illness (BOI) outcome that combines the infection and viral load endpoints. The other six methods combine separate tests for the two endpoints using unweighted or weighted versions of the two-part z, Simes', and Fisher's methods. Based on extensive simulations that were used to design the landmark POC trial, the BOI methods are shown to have generally low power for rejecting the composite null hypothesis (and hence advancing the vaccine to a subsequent large-scale efficacy trial). The unweighted Simes' and Fisher's combination methods perform best overall. Importantly, this conclusion holds even after the test for the viral load component is adjusted for bias that can be introduced by conditioning on a postrandomization event (HIV infection). The adjustment is derived using a selection bias model based on the principal stratification framework of causal inference.     

Assessing the effect of an influenza vaccine in an encouragement design

Many randomized experiments suffer from noncompliance. Some of these experiments, so-called encouragement designs, can be expected to have especially large amounts of noncompliance, because encouragement to take the treatment rather than the treatment itself is randomly assigned to individuals. We present an extended framework for the analysis of data from such experiments with a binary treatment, binary encouragement, and background covariates. There are two key features of this framework: we use an instrumental variables approach to link intention-to-treat effects to treatment effects and we adopt a Bayesian approach for inference and sensitivity analysis. This framework is illustrated in a medical example concerning the effects of inoculation for influenza. In this example, the analyses suggest that positive estimates of the intention-to-treat effect need not be due to the treatment itself, but rather to the encouragement to take the treatment: the intention-to-treat effect for the subpopulation who would be inoculated whether or not encouraged is estimated to be approximately as large as the intention-to-treat effect for the subpopulation whose inoculation status would agree with their (randomized) encouragement status whether or not encouraged. Thus, our methods suggest that global intention-to-treat estimates, although often regarded as conservative, can be too coarse and even misleading when taken as summarizing the evidence in the data for the effects of treatments.     

Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables in randomized trials with stochastic compliance

In randomized trials with imperfect compliance, it is sometimes recommended to supplement the intention‐to‐treat estimate with an instrumental variable (IV) estimate, which is consistent for the effect of treatment administration in those subjects who would get treated if randomized to treatment and would not get treated if randomized to control. The IV estimation however has been criticized for its reliance on simultaneous existence of complementary “fatalistic” compliance states. The objective of the present paper is to identify some sufficient conditions for consistent estimation of treatment effects in randomized trials with stochastic compliance. It is shown that in the stochastic framework, the classical IV estimator is generally inconsistent for the population‐averaged treatment effect. However, even under stochastic compliance, with certain common experimental designs the IV estimator and a simple alternative estimator can be used for consistent estimation of the effect of treatment administration in well‐defined and identifiable subsets of the study population.     

Predicting treatment effect from surrogate endpoints and historical trials: an extrapolation involving probabilities of a binary outcome or survival to a specific time

Using multiple historical trials with surrogate and true endpoints, we consider various models to predict the effect of treatment on a true endpoint in a target trial in which only a surrogate endpoint is observed. This predicted result is computed using (1) a prediction model (mixture, linear, or principal stratification) estimated from historical trials and the surrogate endpoint of the target trial and (2) a random extrapolation error estimated from successively leaving out each trial among the historical trials. The method applies to either binary outcomes or survival to a particular time that is computed from censored survival data. We compute a 95% confidence interval for the predicted result and validate its coverage using simulation. To summarize the additional uncertainty from using a predicted instead of true result for the estimated treatment effect, we compute its multiplier of standard error. Software is available for download.