Search

Within epidemiological research, estimating treatment effects from observational data presents notable challenges. Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE) emerges as a robust method, addressing these challenges by accurately modeling treatment effects. This approach uniquely combines the precision of correctly specified models with the versatility of data-adaptive, flexible machine learning algorithms. Despite its effectiveness, TMLE's integration of complex algorithms can introduce bias and under-coverage. This issue is addressed through the Double Cross-fit TMLE (DC-TMLE) approach, enhancing accuracy and reducing biases inherent in observational studies. However, DC-TMLE's potential remains underexplored in epidemiological research, primarily due to the lack of comprehensive methodological guidance and the complexity of its computational implementation. Recognizing this gap, our paper contributes a detailed, reproducible guide for implementing DC-TMLE in R, aimed specifically at epidemiological applications. We demonstrate the utility of this method using an openly available clinical dataset, underscoring its relevance and adaptability for robust epidemiological analysis. This guide aims to facilitate broader adoption of DC-TMLE in epidemiological studies, promoting more accurate and reliable treatment effect estimations in observational research., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.)

The beta-interferons are widely prescribed platform therapies for patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). We accessed a cohort of patients with relapsing-onset MS from British Columbia, Canada (1995-2013), to examine the potential survival advantage associated with beta-interferon exposure using a marginal structural model. Accounting for potential treatment-confounder feedback between comorbidity, MS disease progression, and beta-interferon exposure, we found an association between beta-interferon exposure of at least 6 contiguous months and improved survival (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.47, 0.86). We also assessed potential effect modifications by sex, baseline age, or baseline disease duration, and found these factors to be important effect modifiers. Sparse follow-up due to variability in patient contact with the health system is one of the biggest challenges in longitudinal analyses. We considered several single-level and multilevel multiple imputation approaches to deal with sparse follow-up and disease progression information; both types of approach produced similar estimates. Compared to ad hoc imputation approaches, such as linear interpolation (HR = 0.63), and last observation carried forward (HR = 0.65), all multiple imputation approaches produced a smaller hazard ratio (HR = 0.53), although the direction of effect and conclusions drawn concerning the survival advantage remained the same., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

In time-to-event analyses of observational studies of drug effectiveness, incorrect handling of the period between cohort entry and first treatment exposure during follow-up may result in immortal time bias. This bias can be eliminated by acknowledging a change in treatment exposure status with time-dependent analyses, such as fitting a time-dependent Cox model. The prescription time-distribution matching (PTDM) method has been proposed as a simpler approach for controlling immortal time bias. Using simulation studies and theoretical quantification of bias, we compared the performance of the PTDM approach with that of the time-dependent Cox model in the presence of immortal time. Both assessments revealed that the PTDM approach did not adequately address immortal time bias. Based on our simulation results, another recently proposed observational data analysis technique, the sequential Cox approach, was found to be more useful than the PTDM approach (Cox: bias = -0.002, mean squared error = 0.025; PTDM: bias = -1.411, mean squared error = 2.011). We applied these approaches to investigate the association of β-interferon treatment with delaying disability progression in a multiple sclerosis cohort in British Columbia, Canada (Long-Term Benefits and Adverse Effects of Beta-Interferon for Multiple Sclerosis (BeAMS) Study, 1995-2008)., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Longitudinal observational data are required to assess the association between exposure to β-interferon medications and disease progression among relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) patients in the "real-world" clinical practice setting. Marginal structural Cox models (MSCMs) can provide distinct advantages over traditional approaches by allowing adjustment for time-varying confounders such as MS relapses, as well as baseline characteristics, through the use of inverse probability weighting. We assessed the suitability of MSCMs to analyze data from a large cohort of 1,697 relapsing-remitting MS patients in British Columbia, Canada (1995-2008). In the context of this observational study, which spanned more than a decade and involved patients with a chronic yet fluctuating disease, the recently proposed "normalized stabilized" weights were found to be the most appropriate choice of weights. Using this model, no association between β-interferon exposure and the hazard of disability progression was found (hazard ratio = 1.36, 95% confidence interval: 0.95, 1.94). For sensitivity analyses, truncated normalized unstabilized weights were used in additional MSCMs and to construct inverse probability weight-adjusted survival curves; the findings did not change. Additionally, qualitatively similar conclusions from approximation approaches to the weighted Cox model (i.e., MSCM) extend confidence in the findings., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)