Search

While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are critical for establishing the efficacy of new therapies, there are limitations regarding what comparisons can be made directly from trial data. RCTs are limited to a small number of comparator arms and often compare a new therapeutic to a standard of care which has already proven efficacious. It is sometimes of interest to estimate the efficacy of the new therapy relative to a treatment that was not evaluated in the same trial, such as a placebo or an alternative therapy that was evaluated in a different trial. Such dual‐study comparisons are challenging because of potential differences between trial populations that can affect the outcome. In this article, two bridging estimators are considered that allow for comparisons of treatments evaluated in different trials, accounting for measured differences in trial populations. A "multi‐span" estimator leverages a shared arm between two trials, while a "single‐span" estimator does not require a shared arm. A diagnostic statistic that compares the outcome in the standardized shared arms is provided. The two estimators are compared in simulations, where both estimators demonstrate minimal empirical bias and nominal confidence interval coverage when the identification assumptions are met. The estimators are applied to data from the AIDS Clinical Trials Group 320 and 388 to compare the efficacy of two‐drug vs four‐drug antiretroviral therapy on CD4 cell counts among persons with advanced HIV. The single‐span approach requires weaker identification assumptions and was more efficient in simulations and the application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main purpose of many medical studies is to estimate the effects of a treatment or exposure on an outcome. However, it is not always possible to randomize the study participants to a particular treatment, therefore observational study designs may be used. There are major challenges with observational studies; one of which is confounding. Controlling for confounding is commonly performed by direct adjustment of measured confounders; although, sometimes this approach is suboptimal due to modeling assumptions and misspecification. Recent advances in the field of causal inference have dealt with confounding by building on classical standardization methods. However, these recent advances have progressed quickly with a relative paucity of computational-oriented applied tutorials contributing to some confusion in the use of these methods among applied researchers. In this tutorial, we show the computational implementation of different causal inference estimators from a historical perspective where new estimators were developed to overcome the limitations of the previous estimators (ie, nonparametric and parametric g-formula, inverse probability weighting, double-robust, and data-adaptive estimators). We illustrate the implementation of different methods using an empirical example from the Connors study based on intensive care medicine, and most importantly, we provide reproducible and commented code in Stata, R, and Python for researchers to adapt in their own observational study. The code can be accessed at https://github.com/migariane/Tutorial_Computational_Causal_Inference_Estimators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marginal structural models were developed as a semiparametric alternative to the G-computation formula to estimate causal effects of exposures. In practice, these models are often specified using parametric regression models. As such, the usual conventions regarding regression model specification apply. This paper outlines strategies for marginal structural model specification and considerations for the functional form of the exposure metric in the final structural model. We propose a quasi-likelihood information criterion adapted from use in generalized estimating equations. We evaluate the properties of our proposed information criterion using a limited simulation study. We illustrate our approach using two empirical examples. In the first example, we use data from a randomized breastfeeding promotion trial to estimate the effect of breastfeeding duration on infant weight at 1 year. In the second example, we use data from two prospective cohorts studies to estimate the effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy on CD4 count in an observational cohort of HIV-infected men and women. The marginal structural model specified should reflect the scientific question being addressed but can also assist in exploration of other plausible and closely related questions. In marginal structural models, as in any regression setting, correct inference depends on correct model specification. Our proposed information criterion provides a formal method for comparing model fit for different specifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a research paper which discusses a flexible parametric mixture model as a method to get estimates of the cause-specific and subdistribution hazards and hazard-ratio functions. It states that estimates can be summarized to give a single number comparable to the hazard ratio from a corresponding cause-specific model. This model was applied in a Women's Interagency HIV Study to support their discussion.