Search

Importance: Previous studies on the comparative effectiveness between buprenorphine and methadone provided limited evidence on differences in treatment effects across key subgroups and were drawn from populations who use primarily heroin or prescription opioids, although fentanyl use is increasing across North America., Objective: To assess the risk of treatment discontinuation and mortality among individuals receiving buprenorphine/naloxone vs methadone for the treatment of opioid use disorder., Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based retrospective cohort study using linked health administrative databases in British Columbia, Canada. The study included treatment recipients between January 1, 2010, and March 17, 2020, who were 18 years or older and not incarcerated, pregnant, or receiving palliative cancer care at initiation., Exposures: Receipt of buprenorphine/naloxone or methadone among incident (first-time) users and prevalent new users (including first and subsequent treatment attempts)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% compatibility (confidence) intervals were estimated for treatment discontinuation (lasting ≥5 days for methadone and ≥6 days for buprenorphine/naloxone) and all-cause mortality within 24 months using discrete-time survival models for comparisons of medications as assigned at initiation regardless of treatment adherence ("initiator") and received according to dosing guidelines (approximating per-protocol analysis)., Results: A total of 30 891 incident users (39% receiving buprenorphine/naloxone; 66% male; median age, 33 [25th-75th, 26-43] years) were included in the initiator analysis and 25 614 in the per-protocol analysis. Incident users of buprenorphine/naloxone had a higher risk of treatment discontinuation compared with methadone in initiator analyses (88.8% vs 81.5% discontinued at 24 months; adjusted HR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.53-1.63]), with limited change in estimates when evaluated at optimal dose in per-protocol analysis (42.1% vs 30.7%; adjusted HR, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.58-1.76]). Per-protocol analyses of mortality while receiving treatment exhibited ambiguous results among incident users (0.08% vs 0.13% mortality at 24 months; adjusted HR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.24-1.35]) and among prevalent users (0.08% vs 0.09%; adjusted HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.54-1.73]). Results were consistent after the introduction of fentanyl and across patient subgroups and sensitivity analyses., Conclusions and Relevance: Receipt of methadone was associated with a lower risk of treatment discontinuation compared with buprenorphine/naloxone. The risk of mortality while receiving treatment was similar for buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone, although the CI estimate for the hazard ratio was wide.

Background: Risk prediction models are routinely used to assist in clinical decision making. A small sample size for model development can compromise model performance when the model is applied to new patients. For binary outcomes, the calibration slope (CS) and the mean absolute prediction error (MAPE) are two key measures on which sample size calculations for the development of risk models have been based. CS quantifies the degree of model overfitting while MAPE assesses the accuracy of individual predictions., Methods: Recently, two formulae were proposed to calculate the sample size required, given anticipated features of the development data such as the outcome prevalence and c-statistic, to ensure that the expectation of the CS and MAPE (over repeated samples) in models fitted using MLE will meet prespecified target values. In this article, we use a simulation study to evaluate the performance of these formulae., Results: We found that both formulae work reasonably well when the anticipated model strength is not too high (c-statistic < 0.8), regardless of the outcome prevalence. However, for higher model strengths the CS formula underestimates the sample size substantially. For example, for c-statistic = 0.85 and 0.9, the sample size needed to be increased by at least 50% and 100%, respectively, to meet the target expected CS. On the other hand, the MAPE formula tends to overestimate the sample size for high model strengths. These conclusions were more pronounced for higher prevalence than for lower prevalence. Similar results were drawn when the outcome was time to event with censoring. Given these findings, we propose a simulation-based approach, implemented in the new R package 'samplesizedev', to correctly estimate the sample size even for high model strengths. The software can also calculate the variability in CS and MAPE, thus allowing for assessment of model stability., Conclusions: The calibration and MAPE formulae suggest sample sizes that are generally appropriate for use when the model strength is not too high. However, they tend to be biased for higher model strengths, which are not uncommon in clinical risk prediction studies. On those occasions, our proposed adjustments to the sample size calculations will be relevant., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Assessing the impact of an intervention by using time-series observational data on multiple units and outcomes is a frequent problem in many fields of scientific research. Here, we propose a novel Bayesian multivariate factor analysis model for estimating intervention effects in such settings and develop an efficient Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm to sample from the high-dimensional and nontractable posterior of interest. The proposed method is one of the few that can simultaneously deal with outcomes of mixed type (continuous, binomial, count), increase efficiency in the estimates of the causal effects by jointly modeling multiple outcomes affected by the intervention, and easily provide uncertainty quantification for all causal estimands of interest. Using the proposed approach, we evaluate the impact that Local Tracing Partnerships had on the effectiveness of England's Test and Trace programme for COVID-19., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objectives: To determine how the intrinsic severity of successively dominant SARS-CoV-2 variants changed over the course of the pandemic., Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (NHS GGC) Health Board. All sequenced non-nosocomial adult COVID-19 cases in NHS GGC with relevant SARS-CoV-2 lineages (B.1.177/Alpha, Alpha/Delta, AY.4.2 Delta/non-AY.4.2 Delta, non-AY.4.2 Delta/Omicron, and BA.1 Omicron/BA.2 Omicron) during analysis periods were included. Outcome measures were hospital admission, ICU admission, or death within 28 days of positive COVID-19 test. We report the cumulative odds ratio; the ratio of the odds that an individual experiences a severity event of a given level vs all lower severity levels for the resident and the replacement variant after adjustment., Results: After adjustment for covariates, the cumulative odds ratio was 1.51 (95% CI: 1.08-2.11) for Alpha versus B.1.177, 2.09 (95% CI: 1.42-3.08) for Delta versus Alpha, 0.99 (95% CI: 0.76-1.27) for AY.4.2 Delta versus non-AY.4.2 Delta, 0.49 (95% CI: 0.22-1.06) for Omicron versus non-AY.4.2 Delta, and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.68-1.09) for BA.2 Omicron versus BA.1 Omicron., Conclusions: The direction of change in intrinsic severity between successively emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants was inconsistent, reminding us that the intrinsic severity of future SARS-CoV-2 variants remains uncertain., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Thomas C Williams is Principal Investigator for the BronchStart project, which is funded by the Respiratory Syncytial Virus Consortium in Europe (RESCEU), with data collection supported by the National Institute for Health Research., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Longitudinal observational data on patients can be used to investigate causal effects of time-varying treatments on time-to-event outcomes. Several methods have been developed for estimating such effects by controlling for the time-dependent confounding that typically occurs. The most commonly used is marginal structural models (MSM) estimated using inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) (MSM-IPTW). An alternative, the sequential trials approach, is increasingly popular, and involves creating a sequence of "trials" from new time origins and comparing treatment initiators and non-initiators. Individuals are censored when they deviate from their treatment assignment at the start of each "trial" (initiator or noninitiator), which is accounted for using inverse probability of censoring weights. The analysis uses data combined across trials. We show that the sequential trials approach can estimate the parameters of a particular MSM. The causal estimand that we focus on is the marginal risk difference between the sustained treatment strategies of "always treat" vs "never treat." We compare how the sequential trials approach and MSM-IPTW estimate this estimand, and discuss their assumptions and how data are used differently. The performance of the two approaches is compared in a simulation study. The sequential trials approach, which tends to involve less extreme weights than MSM-IPTW, results in greater efficiency for estimating the marginal risk difference at most follow-up times, but this can, in certain scenarios, be reversed at later time points and relies on modelling assumptions. We apply the methods to longitudinal observational data from the UK Cystic Fibrosis Registry to estimate the effect of dornase alfa on survival., (© 2023 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Importance: There is a need for observational studies to supplement evidence from clinical trials, and the target trial emulation (TTE) framework can help avoid biases that can be introduced when treatments are compared crudely using observational data by applying design principles for randomized clinical trials. Adalimumab (ADA) and tofacitinib (TOF) were shown to be equivalent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a randomized clinical trial, but to our knowledge, these drugs have not been compared head-to-head using routinely collected clinical data and the TTE framework., Objective: To emulate a randomized clinical trial comparing ADA vs TOF in patients with RA who were new users of a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study emulating a randomized clinical trial of ADA vs TOF included Australian adults aged 18 years or older with RA in the Optimising Patient Outcomes in Australian Rheumatology (OPAL) data set. Patients were included if they initiated ADA or TOF between October 1, 2015, and April 1, 2021; were new b/tsDMARD users; and had at least 1 component of the disease activity score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) recorded at baseline or during follow-up., Intervention: Treatment with either ADA (40 mg every 14 days) or TOF (10 mg daily)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the estimated average treatment effect, defined as the difference in mean DAS28-CRP among patients receiving TOF compared with those receiving ADA at 3 and 9 months after initiating treatment. Missing DAS28-CRP data were multiply imputed. Stable balancing weights were used to account for nonrandomized treatment assignment., Results: A total of 842 patients were identified, including 569 treated with ADA (387 [68.0%] female; median age, 56 years [IQR, 47-66 years]) and 273 treated with TOF (201 [73.6%] female; median age, 59 years [IQR, 51-68 years]). After applying stable balancing weights, mean DAS28-CRP in the ADA group was 5.3 (95% CI, 5.2-5.4) at baseline, 2.6 (95% CI, 2.5-2.7) at 3 months, and 2.3 (95% CI, 2.2-2.4) at 9 months; in the TOF group, it was 5.3 (95% CI, 5.2-5.4) at baseline, 2.4 (95% CI, 2.2-2.5) at 3 months, and 2.3 (95% CI, 2.1-2.4) at 9 months. The estimated average treatment effect was -0.2 (95% CI, -0.4 to -0.03; P = .02) at 3 months and -0.03 (95% CI, -0.2 to 0.1; P = .60) at 9 months., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, there was a modest but statistically significant reduction in DAS28-CRP at 3 months for patients receiving TOF compared with those receiving ADA and no difference between treatment groups at 9 months. Three months of treatment with either drug led to clinically relevant average reductions in mean DAS28-CRP, consistent with remission.

When comparing the risk of a post-infection binary outcome, for example, hospitalisation, for two variants of an infectious pathogen, it is important to adjust for calendar time of infection. Typically, the infection time is unknown and positive test time used as a proxy for it. Positive test time may also be used when assessing how risk of the outcome changes over calendar time. We show that if time from infection to positive test is correlated with the outcome, the risk conditional on positive test time is a function of the trajectory of infection incidence. Hence, a risk ratio adjusted for positive test time can be quite different from the risk ratio adjusted for infection time. We propose a simple sensitivity analysis that indicates how risk ratios adjusted for positive test time and infection time may differ. This involves adjusting for a shifted positive test time, shifted to make the difference between it and infection time uncorrelated with the outcome. We illustrate this method by reanalysing published results on the relative risk of hospitalisation following infection with the Alpha versus pre-existing variants of SARS-CoV-2. Results indicate the relative risk adjusted for infection time may be lower than that adjusted for positive test time.

To investigate if the AY.4.2 sublineage of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant is associated with hospitalization and mortality risks that differ from non-AY.4.2 delta risks, we performed a retrospective cohort study of sequencing-confirmed COVID-19 cases in England based on linkage of routine health care datasets. Using stratified Cox regression, we estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) of hospital admission (aHR = 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], .77-.94), hospital admission or emergency care attendance (aHR = 0.87; 95% CI, .81-.94), and COVID-19 mortality (aHR = 0.85; 95% CI, .71-1.03). The results indicate that the risks of hospitalization and mortality are similar or lower for AY.4.2 compared to cases with other delta sublineages., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. G. D. declares that his employer, UK Health Security Agency, previously known as Public Health England, received funding from GlaxoSmithKline for a research project related to influenza antiviral treatment. This preceded and had no relation to COVID-19, and G. D. had no role in and received no funding from the project. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Time-to-event data are right-truncated if only individuals who have experienced the event by a certain time can be included in the sample. For example, we may be interested in estimating the distribution of time from onset of disease symptoms to death and only have data on individuals who have died. This may be the case, for example, at the beginning of an epidemic. Right truncation causes the distribution of times to event in the sample to be biased towards shorter times compared to the population distribution, and appropriate statistical methods should be used to account for this bias. This article is a review of such methods, particularly in the context of an infectious disease epidemic, like COVID-19. We consider methods for estimating the marginal time-to-event distribution, and compare their efficiencies. (Non-)identifiability of the distribution is an important issue with right-truncated data, particularly at the beginning of an epidemic, and this is discussed in detail. We also review methods for estimating the effects of covariates on the time to event. An illustration of the application of many of these methods is provided, using data on individuals who had died with coronavirus disease by 5 April 2020.

We compare two multi-state modelling frameworks that can be used to represent dates of events following hospital admission for people infected during an epidemic. The methods are applied to data from people admitted to hospital with COVID-19, to estimate the probability of admission to intensive care unit, the probability of death in hospital for patients before and after intensive care unit admission, the lengths of stay in hospital, and how all these vary with age and gender. One modelling framework is based on defining transition-specific hazard functions for competing risks. A less commonly used framework defines partially-latent subpopulations who will experience each subsequent event, and uses a mixture model to estimate the probability that an individual will experience each event, and the distribution of the time to the event given that it occurs. We compare the advantages and disadvantages of these two frameworks, in the context of the COVID-19 example. The issues include the interpretation of the model parameters, the computational efficiency of estimating the quantities of interest, implementation in software and assessing goodness of fit. In the example, we find that some groups appear to be at very low risk of some events, in particular intensive care unit admission, and these are best represented by using 'cure-rate' models to define transition-specific hazards. We provide general-purpose software to implement all the models we describe in the flexsurv R package, which allows arbitrarily flexible distributions to be used to represent the cause-specific hazards or times to events.

Inverse probability of censoring weighting is a popular approach to handling dropout in longitudinal studies. However, inverse probability-of-censoring weighted estimators (IPCWEs) can be inefficient and unstable if the weights are estimated by maximum likelihood. To alleviate these problems, calibrated IPCWEs have been proposed, which use calibrated weights that directly optimize covariate balance in finite samples rather than the weights from maximum likelihood. However, the existing calibrated IPCWEs are all based on the unverifiable assumption of sequential ignorability and sensitivity analysis strategies under non-ignorable dropout are lacking. In this paper, we fill this gap by developing an approach to sensitivity analysis for calibrated IPCWEs under non-ignorable dropout. A simple technique is proposed to speed up the computation of bootstrap and jackknife confidence intervals and thus facilitate sensitivity analyses. We evaluate the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods using simulations and apply our methods to data from an international inception cohort study of systemic lupus erythematosus. An R Markdown tutorial to demonstrate the implementation of the proposed methods is provided.

Understanding the trajectory of the daily number of COVID-19 deaths is essential to decisions on how to respond to the pandemic, but estimating this trajectory is complicated by the delay between deaths occurring and being reported. In England the delay is typically several days, but it can be weeks. This causes considerable uncertainty about how many deaths occurred in recent days. Here we estimate the deaths per day in five age strata within seven English regions, using a Bayesian model that accounts for reporting-day effects and longer-term changes in the delay distribution. We show how the model can be computationally efficiently fitted when the delay distribution is the same in multiple strata, for example, over a wide range of ages., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal Statistical Society.)

Background: The omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2 has demonstrated partial vaccine escape and high transmissibility, with early studies indicating lower severity of infection than that of the delta variant (B.1.617.2). We aimed to better characterise omicron severity relative to delta by assessing the relative risk of hospital attendance, hospital admission, or death in a large national cohort., Methods: Individual-level data on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases resident in England between Nov 29, 2021, and Jan 9, 2022, were linked to routine datasets on vaccination status, hospital attendance and admission, and mortality. The relative risk of hospital attendance or admission within 14 days, or death within 28 days after confirmed infection, was estimated using proportional hazards regression. Analyses were stratified by test date, 10-year age band, ethnicity, residential region, and vaccination status, and were further adjusted for sex, index of multiple deprivation decile, evidence of a previous infection, and year of age within each age band. A secondary analysis estimated variant-specific and vaccine-specific vaccine effectiveness and the intrinsic relative severity of omicron infection compared with delta (ie, the relative risk in unvaccinated cases)., Findings: The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of hospital attendance (not necessarily resulting in admission) with omicron compared with delta was 0·56 (95% CI 0·54-0·58); for hospital admission and death, HR estimates were 0·41 (0·39-0·43) and 0·31 (0·26-0·37), respectively. Omicron versus delta HR estimates varied with age for all endpoints examined. The adjusted HR for hospital admission was 1·10 (0·85-1·42) in those younger than 10 years, decreasing to 0·25 (0·21-0·30) in 60-69-year-olds, and then increasing to 0·47 (0·40-0·56) in those aged at least 80 years. For both variants, past infection gave some protection against death both in vaccinated (HR 0·47 [0·32-0·68]) and unvaccinated (0·18 [0·06-0·57]) cases. In vaccinated cases, past infection offered no additional protection against hospital admission beyond that provided by vaccination (HR 0·96 [0·88-1·04]); however, for unvaccinated cases, past infection gave moderate protection (HR 0·55 [0·48-0·63]). Omicron versus delta HR estimates were lower for hospital admission (0·30 [0·28-0·32]) in unvaccinated cases than the corresponding HR estimated for all cases in the primary analysis. Booster vaccination with an mRNA vaccine was highly protective against hospitalisation and death in omicron cases (HR for hospital admission 8-11 weeks post-booster vs unvaccinated: 0·22 [0·20-0·24]), with the protection afforded after a booster not being affected by the vaccine used for doses 1 and 2., Interpretation: The risk of severe outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantially lower for omicron than for delta, with higher reductions for more severe endpoints and significant variation with age. Underlying the observed risks is a larger reduction in intrinsic severity (in unvaccinated individuals) counterbalanced by a reduction in vaccine effectiveness. Documented previous SARS-CoV-2 infection offered some protection against hospitalisation and high protection against death in unvaccinated individuals, but only offered additional protection in vaccinated individuals for the death endpoint. Booster vaccination with mRNA vaccines maintains over 70% protection against hospitalisation and death in breakthrough confirmed omicron infections., Funding: Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research, Community Jameel, and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests GD declares that his employer UK Health Security Agency (previously operating as Public Health England) received funding from GlaxoSmithKline for a research project related to influenza antiviral treatment. This preceded and had no relation to COVID-19, and GD had no role in and received no funding from the project. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

We offer a natural and extensible measure-theoretic treatment of missingness at random. Within the standard missing-data framework, we give a novel characterization of the observed data as a stopping-set sigma algebra. We demonstrate that the usual missingness-at-random conditions are equivalent to requiring particular stochastic processes to be adapted to a set-indexed filtration. These measurability conditions ensure the usual factorization of likelihood ratios. We illustrate how the theory can be extended easily to incorporate explanatory variables, to describe longitudinal data in continuous time, and to admit more general coarsening of observations.

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant was first detected in England in March, 2021. It has since rapidly become the predominant lineage, owing to high transmissibility. It is suspected that the delta variant is associated with more severe disease than the previously dominant alpha (B.1.1.7) variant. We aimed to characterise the severity of the delta variant compared with the alpha variant by determining the relative risk of hospital attendance outcomes., Methods: This cohort study was done among all patients with COVID-19 in England between March 29 and May 23, 2021, who were identified as being infected with either the alpha or delta SARS-CoV-2 variant through whole-genome sequencing. Individual-level data on these patients were linked to routine health-care datasets on vaccination, emergency care attendance, hospital admission, and mortality (data from Public Health England's Second Generation Surveillance System and COVID-19-associated deaths dataset; the National Immunisation Management System; and NHS Digital Secondary Uses Services and Emergency Care Data Set). The risk for hospital admission and emergency care attendance were compared between patients with sequencing-confirmed delta and alpha variants for the whole cohort and by vaccination status subgroups. Stratified Cox regression was used to adjust for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, recent international travel, area of residence, calendar week, and vaccination status., Findings: Individual-level data on 43 338 COVID-19-positive patients (8682 with the delta variant, 34 656 with the alpha variant; median age 31 years [IQR 17-43]) were included in our analysis. 196 (2·3%) patients with the delta variant versus 764 (2·2%) patients with the alpha variant were admitted to hospital within 14 days after the specimen was taken (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2·26 [95% CI 1·32-3·89]). 498 (5·7%) patients with the delta variant versus 1448 (4·2%) patients with the alpha variant were admitted to hospital or attended emergency care within 14 days (adjusted HR 1·45 [1·08-1·95]). Most patients were unvaccinated (32 078 [74·0%] across both groups). The HRs for vaccinated patients with the delta variant versus the alpha variant (adjusted HR for hospital admission 1·94 [95% CI 0·47-8·05] and for hospital admission or emergency care attendance 1·58 [0·69-3·61]) were similar to the HRs for unvaccinated patients (2·32 [1·29-4·16] and 1·43 [1·04-1·97]; p=0·82 for both) but the precision for the vaccinated subgroup was low., Interpretation: This large national study found a higher hospital admission or emergency care attendance risk for patients with COVID-19 infected with the delta variant compared with the alpha variant. Results suggest that outbreaks of the delta variant in unvaccinated populations might lead to a greater burden on health-care services than the alpha variant., Funding: Medical Research Council; UK Research and Innovation; Department of Health and Social Care; and National Institute for Health Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests GD's employer, Public Health England, has received funding from GlaxoSmithKline for a research project related to seasonal influenza and antiviral treatment; this project preceded and had no relation to COVID-19, and GD had no role in and received no funding from the project. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Crown copyright © 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.)