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.     

Clustered encouragement designs with individual noncompliance: bayesian inference with randomization,and application to advance directive forms

In many studies comparing a new 'target treatment' with a control target treatment, the received treatment does not always agree with assigned treatment-that is, the compliance is imperfect. An obvious example arises when ethical or practical constraints prevent even the randomized assignment of receipt of the new target treatment but allow the randomized assignment of the encouragement to receive this treatment. In fact, many randomized experiments where compliance is not enforced by the experimenter (e.g. with non-blinded assignment) may be more accurately thought of as randomized encouragement designs. Moreover, often the assignment of encouragement is at the level of clusters (e.g. doctors) where the compliance with the assignment varies across the units (e.g. patients) within clusters. We refer to such studies as 'clustered encouragement designs' (CEDs) and they arise relatively frequently (e.g. Sommer and Zeger, 1991; McDonald et al., 1992; Dexter et al., 1998) Here, we propose Bayesian methodology for causal inference for the effect of the new target treatment versus the control target treatment in the randomized CED with all-or-none compliance at the unit level, which generalizes the approach of Hirano et al. (2000) in important and surprisingly subtle ways, to account for the clustering, which is necessary for statistical validity. We illustrate our methods using data from a recent study exploring the role of physician consulting in increasing patients' completion of Advance Directive forms.     

Correction of confounding bias in non-randomized studies by appropriate weighting

In non-randomized studies, the assessment of a causal effect of treatment or exposure on outcome is hampered by possible confounding. Applying multiple regression models including the effects of treatment and covariates on outcome is the well-known classical approach to adjust for confounding. In recent years other approaches have been promoted. One of them is based on the propensity score and considers the effect of possible confounders on treatment as a relevant criterion for adjustment. Another proposal is based on using an instrumental variable. Here inference relies on a factor, the instrument, which affects treatment but is thought to be otherwise unrelated to outcome, so that it mimics randomization. Each of these approaches can basically be interpreted as a simple reweighting scheme, designed to address confounding. The procedures will be compared with respect to their fundamental properties, namely, which bias they aim to eliminate, which effect they aim to estimate, and which parameter is modelled. We will expand our overview of methods for analysis of non-randomized studies to methods for analysis of randomized controlled trials and show that analyses of both study types may target different effects and different parameters. The considerations will be illustrated using a breast cancer study with a so-called Comprehensive Cohort Study design, including a randomized controlled trial and a non-randomized study in the same patient population as sub-cohorts. This design offers ideal opportunities to discuss and illustrate the properties of the different approaches.     

Local average treatment effects estimation via substantive model compatible multiple imputation

Nonadherence to assigned treatment is common in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Recently, there has been increased interest in estimating causal effects of treatment received, for example, the so‐called local average treatment effect (LATE). Instrumental variables (IV) methods can be used for identification, with estimation proceeding either via fully parametric mixture models or two‐stage least squares (TSLS). TSLS is popular but can be problematic for binary outcomes where the estimand of interest is a causal odds ratio. Mixture models are rarely used in practice, perhaps because of their perceived complexity and need for specialist software. Here, we propose using multiple imputation (MI) to impute the latent compliance class appearing in the mixture models. Since such models include an interaction term between the latent compliance class and randomized treatment, we use “substantive model compatible” MI (SMC MIC), which can additionally handle missing data in outcomes and other variables in the model, before fitting the mixture models via maximum likelihood to the MI data sets and combining results via Rubin's rules. We use simulations to compare the performance of SMC MIC to existing approaches and also illustrate the methods by reanalyzing an RCT in UK primary health. We show that SMC MIC can be more efficient than full Bayesian estimation when auxiliary variables are incorporated, and is superior to two‐stage methods, especially for binary outcomes.     

Estimating treatment effects from a randomized clinical trial in the presence of a secondary treatment

In randomized clinical trials involving survival time, a challenge that arises frequently, for example, in cancer studies (Manegold, Symanowski, Gatzemeier, Reck, von Pawel, Kortsik, Nackaerts, Lianes and Vogelzang, 2005. Second-line (post-study) chemotherapy received by patients treated in the phase III trial of pemetrexed plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Annals of Oncology 16, 923--927), is that subjects may initiate secondary treatments during the follow-up. The marginal structural Cox model and the method of inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) have been proposed, originally for observational studies, to make causal inference on time-dependent treatments. In this paper, we adopt the marginal structural Cox model and propose an inferential method that improves the efficiency of the usual IPTW method by tailoring it to the setting of randomized clinical trials. The improvement in efficiency does not depend on any additional assumptions other than those required by the IPTW method, which is achieved by exploiting the knowledge that the study treatment is independent of baseline covariates due to randomization. The finite-sample performance of the proposed method is demonstrated via simulations and by application to data from a cancer clinical trial.     

Methods for clustered encouragement design studies with noncompliance and missing data

Encouragement design studies are particularly useful for estimating the effect of an intervention that cannot itself be randomly administered to some and not to others. They require a randomly selected group receive extra encouragement to undertake the treatment of interest, where the encouragement typically takes the form of additional information or incentives. We consider a "clustered encouragement design" (CED), where the randomization is at the level of the clusters (e.g. physicians), but the compliance with assignment is at the level of the units (e.g. patients) within clusters. Noncompliance and missing data are particular problems in encouragement design studies, where encouragement to take the treatment, rather than the treatment itself, is randomized. The motivating study looks at whether computer-based care suggestions can improve patient outcomes in veterans with chronic heart failure. Since physician adherence has been inadequate, the original study focused on methods to improve physician adherence, although an equally important question is whether physician adherence improves patient outcomes. Here, we reanalyze the data to determine the effect of physician adherence on patient outcomes. We propose causal inference methodology for the effect of a treatment versus a control in a randomized CED study with all-or-none compliance at the unit level. These methods extend the current approaches to account for nonignorable missing data and use an alternative approach to inference using multiple imputation methods, which have been successfully applied to a wide variety of missing data problems and have recently been applied to the potential outcomes framework of causal inference (Taylor and Zhou, 2009b).     

On small‐sample inference in group randomized trials with binary outcomes and cluster‐level covariates

Group randomized trials (GRTs) randomize groups, or clusters, of people to intervention or control arms. To test for the effectiveness of the intervention when subject‐level outcomes are binary, and while fitting a marginal model that adjusts for cluster‐level covariates and utilizes a logistic link, we develop a pseudo‐Wald statistic to improve inference. Alternative Wald statistics could employ bias‐corrected empirical sandwich standard error estimates, which have received limited attention in the GRT literature despite their broad utility and applicability in our settings of interest. The test could also be carried out using popular approaches based upon cluster‐level summary outcomes. A simulation study covering a variety of realistic GRT settings is used to compare the accuracy of these methods in terms of producing nominal test sizes. Tests based upon the pseudo‐Wald statistic and a cluster‐level summary approach utilizing the natural log of observed cluster‐level odds worked best. Due to weighting, some popular cluster‐level summary approaches were found to lead to invalid inference in many settings. Finally, although use of bias‐corrected empirical sandwich standard error estimates did not consistently result in nominal sizes, they did work well, thus supporting the applicability of marginal models in GRT settings.     

Inference in response-adaptive clinical trials when the enrolled population varies over time

A common assumption of data analysis in clinical trials is that the patient population, as well as treatment effects, do not vary during the course of the study. However, when trials enroll patients over several years, this hypothesis may be violated. Ignoring variations of the outcome distributions over time, under the control and experimental treatments, can lead to biased treatment effect estimates and poor control of false positive results. We propose and compare two procedures that account for possible variations of the outcome distributions over time, to correct treatment effect estimates, and to control type-I error rates. The first procedure models trends of patient outcomes with splines. The second leverages conditional inference principles, which have been introduced to analyze randomized trials when patient prognostic profiles are unbalanced across arms. These two procedures are applicable in response-adaptive clinical trials. We illustrate the consequences of trends in the outcome distributions in response-adaptive designs and in platform trials, and investigate the proposed methods in the analysis of a glioblastoma study.     

Generalizing causal inferences from individuals in randomized trials to all trial‐eligible individuals

We consider methods for causal inference in randomized trials nested within cohorts of trial‐eligible individuals, including those who are not randomized. We show how baseline covariate data from the entire cohort, and treatment and outcome data only from randomized individuals, can be used to identify potential (counterfactual) outcome means and average treatment effects in the target population of all eligible individuals. We review identifiability conditions, propose estimators, and assess the estimators' finite‐sample performance in simulation studies. As an illustration, we apply the estimators in a trial nested within a cohort of trial‐eligible individuals to compare coronary artery bypass grafting surgery plus medical therapy vs. medical therapy alone for chronic coronary artery disease.     

Principal stratification with predictors of compliance for randomized trials with 2 active treatments

In behavioral medicine trials, such as smoking cessation trials, 2 or more active treatments are often compared. Noncompliance by some subjects with their assigned treatment poses a challenge to the data analyst. The principal stratification framework permits inference about causal effects among subpopulations characterized by potential compliance. However, in the absence of prior information, there are 2 significant limitations: (1) the causal effects cannot be point identified for some strata and (2) individuals in the subpopulations (strata) cannot be identified. We propose to use additional information-compliance-predictive covariates-to help identify the causal effects and to help describe characteristics of the subpopulations. The probability of membership in each principal stratum is modeled as a function of these covariates. The model is constructed using marginal compliance models (which are identified) and a sensitivity parameter that captures the association between the 2 marginal distributions. We illustrate our methods in both a simulation study and an analysis of data from a smoking cessation trial.     

Rethinking historical controls

Inference from traditional historical controls, i.e. comparing a new treatment in a current series of patients with an old treatment in a previous series of patients, may be subject to a strong selection bias. To avoid this bias, Baker and Lindeman (1994) proposed the paired availability design. By applying this methodology to estimate the effect of epidural analgesia on the probability of Cesarean section, we made two important contributions with the current study. First, we generalized the methodology to include different types of availability and multiple time periods. Second, we investigated how well the paired availability design reduced selection bias by comparing results to those from a meta-analysis of randomized trials and a multivariate analysis of concurrent controls. The confidence interval from the paired availability approach differed considerably from that of the multivariate analysis of concurrent controls but was similar to that from the meta-analysis of randomized trials. Because we believe the multivariate analysis of concurrent controls omitted an important predictor and the meta-analysis of randomized trials was the gold standard for inference, we concluded that the paired availability design did, in fact, reduce selection bias.     

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.     

Early initiation of statin therapy after a coronary event

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite improvements in the early management of acute coronary syndromes, the risk of major cardiovascular complications remains high. Lipid-modifying treatment with statins has the potential to further improve outcomes through improved endothelial function, antithrombotic and antiinflammatory actions. Statins are of proven benefit in patients with stable coronary heart disease. There has been speculation on potential mechanisms of benefit but, until recently, little data on the efficacy and safety of statins in the acute setting. Recent observational studies and randomized trials have addressed some of the questions regarding early initiation of statins in acute coronary syndromes. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent observational and randomized trials have shown that early commencement of statins in acute coronary syndromes is safe as early as 6 hours after the event and is likely to improve longer-term compliance. The current data are not sufficient to draw conclusions about the efficacy of statins early in the course of acute coronary syndromes. SUMMARY: Current management for acute coronary syndromes should include the commencement of statin therapy during initial hospital admission. This recommendation is based on safety and compliance data. More randomized trial evidence is required to determine whether early initiation will produce better outcomes than later initiation after an acute coronary event.     

Evaluation of community-intervention trials via generalized linear mixed models

In community-intervention trials, communities, rather than individuals, are randomized to experimental arms. Generalized linear mixed models offer a flexible parametric framework for the evaluation of community-intervention trials, incorporating both systematic and random variations at the community and individual levels. We propose here a simple two-stage inference method for generalized linear mixed models, specifically tailored to the analysis of community-intervention trials. In the first stage, community-specific random effects are estimated from individual-level data, adjusting for the effects of individual-level covariates. This reduces the model approximately to a linear mixed model with the unit of analysis being community. Because the number of communities is typically small in community-intervention studies, we apply the small-sample inference method of Kenward and Roger (1997, Biometrics53, 983-997) to the linear mixed model of second stage. We show by simulation that, under typical settings of community-intervention studies, the proposed approach improves the inference on the intervention-effect parameter uniformly over both the linearized mixed-effect approach and the adaptive Gaussian quadrature approach for generalized linear mixed models. This work is motivated by a series of large randomized trials that test community interventions for promoting cancer preventive lifestyles and behaviors.     

Cox regression methods for two-stage randomization designs

Two-stage randomization designs (TSRD) are becoming increasingly common in oncology and AIDS clinical trials as they make more efficient use of study participants to examine therapeutic regimens. In these designs patients are initially randomized to an induction treatment, followed by randomization to a maintenance treatment conditional on their induction response and consent to further study treatment. Broader acceptance of TSRDs in drug development may hinge on the ability to make appropriate intent-to-treat type inference within this design framework as to whether an experimental induction regimen is better than a standard induction regimen when maintenance treatment is fixed. Recently Lunceford, Davidian, and Tsiatis (2002, Biometrics 58, 48-57) introduced an inverse probability weighting based analytical framework for estimating survival distributions and mean restricted survival times, as well as for comparing treatment policies at landmarks in the TSRD setting. In practice Cox regression is widely used and in this article we extend the analytical framework of Lunceford et al. (2002) to derive a consistent estimator for the log hazard in the Cox model and a robust score test to compare treatment policies. Large sample properties of these methods are derived, illustrated via a simulation study, and applied to a TSRD clinical trial.     

心理干预对脑卒中抑郁焦虑情绪的康复作用及对患者治疗依从性的影响研究

目的:探讨心理干预对脑卒中抑郁焦虑情绪的康复作用及对患者治疗依从性的影响。方法:我院老年科、神经内科、康复医学科治疗的脑卒中并出现抑郁焦虑情绪障碍的患者120例,随机分为观察组和对照组,各60例,两组患者均入院以后给予脑血管药物进行常规治疗和日常功能训练;观察组同时给予心理干预并根据病情应用抗抑郁抗焦虑药物等。于干预前、干预后3个月、6个月、1年分别对两组患者用SCL-90量表、总体幸福感指数量表、Barthel指数量表对患者进行评估,并评估患者治疗依从性。结果:干预后,观察组SCL-90各因子评分及总分均较干预前明显降低(P0.05),对照组SCL-90各因子评分及总分与干预前比较无统计学差异(P0.05)。干预前两组患者总体幸福感评分和Barthel评分比较无统计学差异(P0.05),干预后3个月、6个月和1年观察组总体幸福感评分和Barthel评分均明显高于对照组(P0.05)。观察组患者在治疗期间总体依从率明显高于对照组(P0.05)。结论:心理干预能够有效的改善脑卒中患者早期康复病人抑郁和焦虑的情绪,提高患者治疗的依从性。     

护理干预对系统性红斑狼疮患者激素治疗依从性的影响

目的:探讨护理干预对系统性红斑狼疮患者激素治疗依从性的影响。方法:选取应用糖皮质激素治疗系统性红斑狼疮的患者104例为研究对象,随机分为对照组和研究组各52例。对对照组患者应用常规的护理模式,而对研究组患者进行全程护理干预。根据患者对药物依从性的差异进行有针对性的护理。研究结果采用x2检验和t检验对结果进行分析,当P0.05有统计学意义。结果:研究组进行护理干预后,患者治疗的依从性及临床效果均明显高于对照组,并且研究组对相关知识的掌握情况明显高于对照组。结论:护理干预可提高患者对健康知识的认知及激素治疗的依从性,增强治疗效果、降低并发症的发生,从而提升患者的生活质量。     

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.     

Compliance with Once-Daily versus Twice or Thrice-Daily Administration of Antibiotic Regimens: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

To investigate whether compliance of patients to antibiotic treatment is better when antibiotics are administered once than multiple times daily.

Methods

We performed a systematic search in PubMed and Scopus databases. Only randomized controlled trials were considered eligible for inclusion. Compliance to antibiotic treatment was the outcome of the meta-analysis.

Results

Twenty-six studies including 8246 patients with upper respiratory tract infections in the vast majority met the inclusion criteria. In total, higher compliance was found among patients treated with once-daily treatment than those receiving treatment twice, thrice or four times daily [5011 patients, RR=1.22 (95% CI, 1.11, 1.34]. Adults receiving an antibiotic once-daily were more compliant than those receiving the same antibiotic multiple times daily [380 patients, RR=1.09 (95% CI, 1.02, 1.16)]. Likewise, children that received an antibiotic twice-daily were more compliant than those receiving the same antibiotic thrice-daily [2118 patients, RR=1.10 (95% CI, 1.02, 1.19)]. Higher compliance was also found among patients receiving an antibiotic once compared to those receiving an antibiotic of different class thrice or four times daily [395 patients, RR=1.20 (95% CI, 1.12, 1.28)]. The finding of better compliance with lower frequency daily was consistent regardless of the study design, and treatment duration.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis showed that compliance to antibiotic treatment might be associated with higher when an antibiotic is administered once than multiple times daily for the treatment of specific infections and for specific classes of antibiotics.     

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.