Search

Mendelian randomisation is an epidemiological method for estimating causal associations from observational data by using genetic variants as instrumental variables. Typically the genetic variants explain only a small proportion of the variation in the risk factor of interest, and so large sample sizes are required, necessitating data from multiple sources. Meta-analysis based on individual patient data requires synthesis of studies which differ in many aspects. A proposed Bayesian framework is able to estimate a causal effect from each study, and combine these using a hierarchical model. The method is illustrated for data on C-reactive protein and coronary heart disease (CHD) from the C-reactive protein CHD Genetics Collaboration (CCGC). Studies from the CCGC differ in terms of the genetic variants measured, the study design (prospective or retrospective, population-based or case-control), whether C-reactive protein was measured, the time of C-reactive protein measurement (pre- or post-disease), and whether full or tabular data were shared. We show how these data can be combined in an efficient way to give a single estimate of causal association based on the totality of the data available. Compared to a two-stage analysis, the Bayesian method is able to incorporate data on 23% additional participants and 51% more events, leading to a 23-26% gain in efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wei, Lin and Weissfeld (WLW) have applied an elaboration of Cox's proportional hazards regression to the analysis of recurrent events data. This application is controversial and has attracted criticism in a piecemeal fashion over 15 years. A frequently raised concern is the method's 'risk set': each individual is considered to be at risk of all recurrent events from the start of the observation period. The WLW method often gives estimates that exceed those provided by alternative approaches. This paper investigates whether the estimates are a consequence of biased estimation, or reflect a particular aspect of the treatment effect. Simulation studies show that the WLW method infringes the proportional hazards assumption when applied to recurrent events data, but that the bias this may cause is not behind the distinctive effect estimates. Instead, the method's risk set is demonstrated to be responsible, leading to discussion of the interpretation of the treatment effect being estimated. Analyses of medical data indicate that the infringement of the proportional hazards assumption is not necessarily greater than that experienced with other applications of proportional hazards regression and need not prohibit the application of WLW's method to recurrent events data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Instrumental variable analysis is an approach for obtaining causal inferences on the effect of an exposure (risk factor) on an outcome from observational data. It has gained in popularity over the past decade with the use of genetic variants as instrumental variables, known as Mendelian randomization. An instrumental variable is associated with the exposure, but not associated with any confounder of the exposure-outcome association, nor is there any causal pathway from the instrumental variable to the outcome other than via the exposure. Under the assumption that a single instrumental variable or a set of instrumental variables for the exposure is available, the causal effect of the exposure on the outcome can be estimated. There are several methods available for instrumental variable estimation; we consider the ratio method, two-stage methods, likelihood-based methods, and semi-parametric methods. Techniques for obtaining statistical inferences and confidence intervals are presented. The statistical properties of estimates from these methods are compared, and practical advice is given about choosing a suitable analysis method. In particular, bias and coverage properties of estimators are considered, especially with weak instruments. Settings particularly relevant to Mendelian randomization are prioritized in the paper, notably the scenario of a continuous exposure and a continuous or binary outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multilevel models provide a flexible modelling framework for cost-effectiveness analyses that use cluster randomised trial data. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to choose the most appropriate multilevel models. This paper illustrates an approach for deciding what level of model complexity is warranted; in particular how best to accommodate complex variance-covariance structures, right-skewed costs and missing data. Our proposed models differ according to whether or not they allow individual-level variances and correlations to differ across treatment arms or clusters and by the assumed cost distribution (Normal, Gamma, Inverse Gaussian). The models are fitted by Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Our approach to model choice is based on four main criteria: the characteristics of the data, model pre-specification informed by the previous literature, diagnostic plots and assessment of model appropriateness. This is illustrated by re-analysing a previous cost-effectiveness analysis that uses data from a cluster randomised trial. We find that the most useful criterion for model choice was the deviance information criterion, which distinguishes amongst models with alternative variance-covariance structures, as well as between those with different cost distributions. This strategy for model choice can help cost-effectiveness analyses provide reliable inferences for policy-making when using cluster trials, including those with missing data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]