Sensitivity analysis for causal inference using inverse probability weighting

Evaluation of impact of potential uncontrolled confounding is an important component for causal inference based on observational studies. In this article, we introduce a general framework of sensitivity analysis that is based on inverse probability weighting. We propose a general methodology that allows both non‐parametric and parametric analyses, which are driven by two parameters that govern the magnitude of the variation of the multiplicative errors of the propensity score and their correlations with the potential outcomes. We also introduce a specific parametric model that offers a mechanistic view on how the uncontrolled confounding may bias the inference through these parameters. Our method can be readily applied to both binary and continuous outcomes and depends on the covariates only through the propensity score that can be estimated by any parametric or non‐parametric method. We illustrate our method with two medical data sets.     

Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models

The goal of this article is to construct doubly robust (DR) estimators in ignorable missing data and causal inference models. In a missing data model, an estimator is DR if it remains consistent when either (but not necessarily both) a model for the missingness mechanism or a model for the distribution of the complete data is correctly specified. Because with observational data one can never be sure that either a missingness model or a complete data model is correct, perhaps the best that can be hoped for is to find a DR estimator. DR estimators, in contrast to standard likelihood-based or (nonaugmented) inverse probability-weighted estimators, give the analyst two chances, instead of only one, to make a valid inference. In a causal inference model, an estimator is DR if it remains consistent when either a model for the treatment assignment mechanism or a model for the distribution of the counterfactual data is correctly specified. Because with observational data one can never be sure that a model for the treatment assignment mechanism or a model for the counterfactual data is correct, inference based on DR estimators should improve upon previous approaches. Indeed, we present the results of simulation studies which demonstrate that the finite sample performance of DR estimators is as impressive as theory would predict. The proposed method is applied to a cardiovascular clinical trial.     

Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects

Estimation of average treatment effects under unconfounded orignorable treatment assignment is often hampered by lack ofoverlap in the covariate distributions between treatment groups.This lack of overlap can lead to imprecise estimates, and canmake commonly used estimators sensitive to the choice of specification.In such cases researchers have often used ad hoc methods fortrimming the sample. We develop a systematic approach to addressinglack of overlap. We characterize optimal subsamples for whichthe average treatment effect can be estimated most precisely.Under some conditions, the optimal selection rules depend solelyon the propensity score. For a wide range of distributions,a good approximation to the optimal rule is provided by thesimple rule of thumb to discard all units with estimated propensityscores outside the range [0.1,0.9].     

Mendelian randomization mixed-scale treatment effect robust identification and estimation for causal inference

Standard Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis can produce biased results if the genetic variant defining an instrumental variable (IV) is confounded and/or has a horizontal pleiotropic effect on the outcome of interest not mediated by the treatment variable. We provide novel identification conditions for the causal effect of a treatment in the presence of unmeasured confounding by leveraging a possibly invalid IV for which both the IV independence and exclusion restriction assumptions may be violated. The proposed Mendelian randomization mixed-scale treatment effect robust identification (MR MiSTERI) approach relies on (i) an assumption that the treatment effect does not vary with the possibly invalid IV on the additive scale; (ii) that the confounding bias does not vary with the possibly invalid IV on the odds ratio scale; and (iii) that the residual variance for the outcome is heteroskedastic with respect to the possibly invalid IV. Although assumptions (i) and (ii) have, respectively, appeared in the IV literature, assumption (iii) has not; we formally establish that their conjunction can identify a causal effect even with an invalid IV. MR MiSTERI is shown to be particularly advantageous in the presence of pervasive heterogeneity of pleiotropic effects on the additive scale. We propose a simple and consistent three-stage estimator that can be used as a preliminary estimator to a carefully constructed efficient one-step-update estimator. In order to incorporate multiple, possibly correlated, and weak invalid IVs, a common challenge in MR studies, we develop a MAny Weak Invalid Instruments (MR MaWII MiSTERI) approach for strengthened identification and improved estimation accuracy. Both simulation studies and UK Biobank data analysis results demonstrate the robustness of the proposed methods.     

Robust inference on the average treatment effect using the outcome highly adaptive lasso

Many estimators of the average effect of a treatment on an outcome require estimation of the propensity score, the outcome regression, or both. It is often beneficial to utilize flexible techniques, such as semiparametric regression or machine learning, to estimate these quantities. However, optimal estimation of these regressions does not necessarily lead to optimal estimation of the average treatment effect, particularly in settings with strong instrumental variables. A recent proposal addressed these issues via the outcome-adaptive lasso, a penalized regression technique for estimating the propensity score that seeks to minimize the impact of instrumental variables on treatment effect estimators. However, a notable limitation of this approach is that its application is restricted to parametric models. We propose a more flexible alternative that we call the outcome highly adaptive lasso. We discuss the large sample theory for this estimator and propose closed-form confidence intervals based on the proposed estimator. We show via simulation that our method offers benefits over several popular approaches.     

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.     

A comparison of methods for estimating the causal effect of a treatment in randomized clinical trials subject to noncompliance

Summary .  We consider the analysis of clinical trials that involve randomization to an active treatment ( T  = 1) or a control treatment ( T  = 0), when the active treatment is subject to all-or-nothing compliance. We compare three approaches to estimating treatment efficacy in this situation: as-treated analysis, per-protocol analysis, and instrumental variable (IV) estimation, where the treatment effect is estimated using the randomization indicator as an IV. Both model- and method-of-moment based IV estimators are considered. The assumptions underlying these estimators are assessed, standard errors and mean squared errors of the estimates are compared, and design implications of the three methods are examined. Extensions of the methods to include observed covariates are then discussed, emphasizing the role of compliance propensity methods and the contrasting role of covariates in these extensions. Methods are illustrated on data from the Women Take Pride study, an assessment of behavioral treatments for women with heart disease.     

On estimation of the survivor average causal effect in observational studies when important confounders are missing due to death

Summary .  We focus on estimation of the causal effect of treatment on the functional status of individuals at a fixed point in time t * after they have experienced a catastrophic event, from observational data with the following features: (i) treatment is imposed shortly after the event and is nonrandomized, (ii) individuals who survive to t * are scheduled to be interviewed, (iii) there is interview nonresponse, (iv) individuals who die prior to t * are missing information on preevent confounders, and (v) medical records are abstracted on all individuals to obtain information on postevent, pretreatment confounding factors. To address the issue of survivor bias, we seek to estimate the survivor average causal effect (SACE), the effect of treatment on functional status among the cohort of individuals who would survive to t * regardless of whether or not assigned to treatment. To estimate this effect from observational data, we need to impose untestable assumptions, which depend on the collection of all confounding factors. Because preevent information is missing on those who die prior to t *, it is unlikely that these data are missing at random. We introduce a sensitivity analysis methodology to evaluate the robustness of SACE inferences to deviations from the missing at random assumption. We apply our methodology to the evaluation of the effect of trauma center care on vitality outcomes using data from the National Study on Costs and Outcomes of Trauma Care.     

Estimation and inference for the causal effect of receiving treatment on a multinomial outcome

Summary .  This article considers the analysis of two-arm randomized trials with noncompliance, which have a multinomial outcome. We first define the causal effect in these trials as some function of outcome distributions of compliers with and without treatment (e.g., the complier average causal effect, the measure of stochastic superiority of treatment over control for compliers), then estimate the causal effect with the likelihood method. Next, based on the likelihood-ratio (LR) statistic, we test those functions of or the equality of the outcome distributions of compliers with and without treatment. Although the corresponding LR statistic follows a chi-squared  (χ²)  distribution asymptotically when the true values of parameters are in the interior of the parameter space under the null, its asymptotic distribution is not  χ²  when the true values of parameters are on the boundary of the parameter space under the null. Therefore, we propose a bootstrap/double bootstrap version of a LR test for the causal effect in these trials. The methods are illustrated by an analysis of data from a randomized trial of an encouragement intervention to improve adherence to prescribed depression treatments among depressed elderly patients in primary care practices.     

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.     

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.     

A powerful and robust test statistic for randomization inference in group-randomized trials with matched pairs of groups

For group-randomized trials, randomization inference based on rank statistics provides robust, exact inference against nonnormal distributions. However, in a matched-pair design, the currently available rank-based statistics lose significant power compared to normal linear mixed model (LMM) test statistics when the LMM is true. In this article, we investigate and develop an optimal test statistic over all statistics in the form of the weighted sum of signed Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon statistics under certain assumptions. This test is almost as powerful as the LMM even when the LMM is true, but it is much more powerful for heavy tailed distributions. A simulation study is conducted to examine the power.     

Assessing treatment effect heterogeneity in clinical trials with blocked binary outcomes

This paper addresses treatment effect heterogeneity (also referred to, more compactly, as 'treatment heterogeneity') in the context of a controlled clinical trial with binary endpoints. Treatment heterogeneity, variation in the true (causal) individual treatment effects, is explored using the concept of the potential outcome. This framework supposes the existance of latent responses for each subject corresponding to each possible treatment. In the context of a binary endpoint, treatment heterogeniety may be represented by the parameter, pi2, the probability that an individual would have a failure on the experimental treatment, if received, and would have a success on control, if received. Previous research derived bounds for pi2 based on matched pairs data. The present research extends this method to the blocked data context. Estimates (and their variances) and confidence intervals for the bounds are derived. We apply the new method to data from a renal disease clinical trial. In this example, bounds based on the blocked data are narrower than the corresponding bounds based only on the marginal success proportions. Some remaining challenges (including the possibility of further reducing bound widths) are discussed.     

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.     

Estimating mean response as a function of treatment duration in an observational study, where duration may be informatively censored

After a treatment is found to be effective in a clinical study, attention often focuses on the effect of treatment duration on outcome. Such an analysis facilitates recommendations on the most beneficial treatment duration. In many studies, the treatment duration, within certain limits, is left to the discretion of the investigators. It is often the case that treatment must be terminated prematurely due to an adverse event, in which case a recommended treatment duration is part of a policy that treats patients for a specified length of time or until a treatment-censoring event occurs, whichever comes first. Evaluating mean response for a particular treatment-duration policy from observational data is difficult due to censoring and the fact that it may not be reasonable to assume patients are prognostically similar across all treatment strategies. We propose an estimator for mean response as a function of treatment-duration policy under these conditions. The method uses potential outcomes and embodies assumptions that allow consistent estimation of the mean response. The estimator is evaluated through simulation studies and demonstrated by application to the ESPRIT infusion trial coordinated at Duke University Medical Center.