Search

In this paper, we respond to comments on our paper, "Instrumental variable estimation of the causal hazard ratio.", (© 2022 The International Biometric Society.)

The hazard ratio is one of the most commonly reported measures of treatment effect in randomised trials, yet the source of much misinterpretation. This point was made clear by Hernán (Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass) 21(1):13-15, 2010) in a commentary, which emphasised that the hazard ratio contrasts populations of treated and untreated individuals who survived a given period of time, populations that will typically fail to be comparable-even in a randomised trial-as a result of different pressures or intensities acting on different populations. The commentary has been very influential, but also a source of surprise and confusion. In this note, we aim to provide more insight into the subtle interpretation of hazard ratios and differences, by investigating in particular what can be learned about a treatment effect from the hazard ratio becoming 1 (or the hazard difference 0) after a certain period of time. We further define a hazard ratio that has a causal interpretation and study its relationship to the Cox hazard ratio, and we also define a causal hazard difference. These quantities are of theoretical interest only, however, since they rely on assumptions that cannot be empirically evaluated. Throughout, we will focus on the analysis of randomised experiments.

In this paper we present a framework to do estimation in a structural Cox model when there may be unobserved confounding. The model is phrased in terms of a selection bias function and a baseline model that describes how covariates affect the survival time in a scenario without exposure. In this way model congeniality is ensured. The method uses an instrumental variable. Interestingly, the formulated model turns out to have similarities to the so-called Cox-Aalen survival model for the observed data. We exploit this to enhance estimation of the unknown parameters. This also allows us to derive large sample properties of the proposed estimator.

The estimation of conditional treatment effects in an observational study with a survival outcome typically involves fitting a hazards regression model adjusted for a high-dimensional covariate. Standard estimation of the treatment effect is then not entirely satisfactory, as the misspecification of the effect of this covariate may induce a large bias. Such misspecification is a particular concern when inferring the hazard difference, because it is difficult to postulate additive hazards models that guarantee non-negative hazards over the entire observed covariate range. We therefore consider a novel class of semiparametric additive hazards models which leave the effects of covariates unspecified. The efficient score under this model is derived. We then propose two different estimation approaches for the hazard difference (and hence also the relative chance of survival), both of which yield estimators that are doubly robust. The approaches are illustrated using simulation studies and data on right heart catheterization and mortality from the SUPPORT study., (© 2018, The International Biometric Society.)

Instrumental variable (IV) analysis is an increasingly popular tool for inferring the effect of an exposure on an outcome, as witnessed by the growing number of IV applications in epidemiology, for instance. The majority of IV analyses of time-to-event endpoints are, however, dominated by heuristic approaches. More rigorous proposals have either sidestepped the Cox model, or considered it within a restrictive context with dichotomous exposure and instrument, amongst other limitations. The aim of this article is to reconsider IV estimation under a structural Cox model, allowing for arbitrary exposure and instruments. We propose a novel class of estimators and derive their asymptotic properties. The methodology is illustrated using two real data applications, and using simulated data.

The use of instrumental variables for estimating the effect of an exposure on an outcome is popular in econometrics, and increasingly so in epidemiology. This increasing popularity may be attributed to the natural occurrence of instrumental variables in observational studies that incorporate elements of randomization, either by design or by nature (e.g., random inheritance of genes). Instrumental variables estimation of exposure effects is well established for continuous outcomes and to some extent for binary outcomes. It is, however, largely lacking for time-to-event outcomes because of complications due to censoring and survivorship bias. In this article, we make a novel proposal under a class of structural cumulative survival models which parameterize time-varying effects of a point exposure directly on the scale of the survival function; these models are essentially equivalent with a semi-parametric variant of the instrumental variables additive hazards model. We propose a class of recursive instrumental variable estimators for these exposure effects, and derive their large sample properties along with inferential tools. We examine the performance of the proposed method in simulation studies and illustrate it in a Mendelian randomization study to evaluate the effect of diabetes on mortality using data from the Health and Retirement Study. We further use the proposed method to investigate potential benefit from breast cancer screening on subsequent breast cancer mortality based on the HIP-study., (© 2017, The International Biometric Society.)

We study the situation where it is of interest to estimate the effect of an exposure variable [Formula: see text] on a survival time response [Formula: see text] in the presence of confounding by measured variables [Formula: see text]. Quantifying the amount of confounding is complicated by the non-collapsibility or non-linearity of typical effect measures in survival analysis: survival analyses with or without adjustment for [Formula: see text] typically infer different effect estimands of a different magnitude, even when [Formula: see text] is not associated with the exposure, and henceforth not a confounder of the association between exposure and survival time. We show that, interestingly, the exposure coefficient indexing the Aalen additive hazards model is not subject to such non-collapsibility, unlike the corresponding coefficient indexing the Cox model, so that simple measures of the amount of confounding bias are obtainable for the Aalen hazards model, but not for the Cox model. We argue that various other desirable properties can be ascribed to the Aalen model as a result of this collapsibility. This work generalizes recent work by Janes et al. (Biostatistics 11:572-582, 2010).

The Cox regression model is often used when analyzing survival data as it provides a convenient way of summarizing covariate effects in terms of relative risks. The proportional hazards assumption may not hold, however. A typical violation of the assumption is time-changing covariate effects. Under such scenarios one may use more flexible models but the results from such models may be complicated to communicate and it is desirable to have simple measures of a treatment effect, say. In this paper we focus on the odds-of-concordance measure that was recently studied by Schemper et al. (Stat Med 28:2473-2489, 2009). They suggested to estimate this measure using weighted Cox regression (WCR). Although WCR may work in many scenarios no formal proof can be established. We suggest an alternative estimator of the odds-of-concordance measure based on the Aalen additive hazards model. In contrast to the WCR, one may derive the large sample properties for this estimator making formal inference possible. The estimator also allows for additional covariate effects.

Genetic association studies often investigate the effect of haplotypes on an outcome of interest. Haplotypes are not observed directly, and this complicates the inclusion of such effects in survival models. We describe a new estimating equations approach for Cox's regression model to assess haplotype effects for survival data. These estimating equations are simple to implement and avoid the use of the EM algorithm, which may be slow in the context of the semiparametric Cox model with incomplete covariate information. These estimating equations also lead to easily computable, direct estimators of standard errors, and thus overcome some of the difficulty in obtaining variance estimators based on the EM algorithm in this setting. We also develop an easily implemented goodness-of-fit procedure for Cox's regression model including haplotype effects. Finally, we apply the procedures presented in this article to investigate possible haplotype effects of the PAF-receptor on cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease, and compare our results to those based on the EM algorithm., (© 2009, The International Biometric Society.)

This paper considers estimation and prediction in the Aalen additive hazards model in the case where the covariate vector is high-dimensional such as gene expression measurements. Some form of dimension reduction of the covariate space is needed to obtain useful statistical analyses. We study the partial least squares regression method. It turns out that it is naturally adapted to this setting via the so-called Krylov sequence. The resulting PLS estimator is shown to be consistent provided that the number of terms included is taken to be equal to the number of relevant components in the regression model. A standard PLS algorithm can also be constructed, but it turns out that the resulting predictor can only be related to the original covariates via time-dependent coefficients. The methods are applied to a breast cancer data set with gene expression recordings and to the well known primary biliary cirrhosis clinical data.

The Cox hazards model (Cox, 1972, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B34, 187-220) for survival data is routinely used in many applied fields, sometimes, however, with too little emphasis on the fit of the model. A useful alternative to the Cox model is the Aalen additive hazards model (Aalen, 1980, in Lecture Notes in Statistics-2, 1-25) that can easily accommodate time changing covariate effects. It is of interest to decide which of the two models that are most appropriate to apply in a given application. This is a nontrivial problem as these two classes of models are nonnested except only for special cases. In this article we explore the Mizon-Richard encompassing test for this particular problem. It turns out that it corresponds to fitting of the Aalen model to the martingale residuals obtained from the Cox regression analysis. We also consider a variant of this method, which relates to the proportional excess model (Martinussen and Scheike, 2002, Biometrika 89, 283-298). Large sample properties of the suggested methods under the two rival models are derived. The finite-sample properties of the proposed procedures are assessed through a simulation study. The methods are further applied to the well-known primary biliary cirrhosis data set.

Shared frailty models are of interest when one has clustered survival data and when focus is on comparing the lifetimes within clusters and further on estimating the correlation between lifetimes from the same cluster. It is well known that the positive stable model should be preferred to the gamma model in situations where the correlated survival data show a decreasing association with time. In this paper, we devise a likelihood based estimation procedure for the positive stable shared frailty Cox model, which is expected to obtain high efficiency. The proposed estimator is provided with large sample properties and also a consistent estimator of standard errors is given. Simulation studies show that the estimation procedure is appropriate for practical use, and that it is much more efficient than a recently suggested procedure. The suggested methodology is applied to a dataset concerning time to blindness for patients with diabetic retinopathy.

Bias due to unobserved confounding can seldom be ruled out with certainty when estimating the causal effect of a nonrandomized treatment. The instrumental variable (IV) design offers, under certain assumptions, the opportunity to tame confounding bias, without directly observing all confounders. The IV approach is very well developed in the context of linear regression and also for certain generalized linear models with a nonlinear link function. However, IV methods are not as well developed for regression analysis with a censored survival outcome. In this article, we develop the IV approach for regression analysis in a survival context, primarily under an additive hazards model, for which we describe 2 simple methods for estimating causal effects. The first method is a straightforward 2-stage regression approach analogous to 2-stage least squares commonly used for IV analysis in linear regression. In this approach, the fitted value from a first-stage regression of the exposure on the IV is entered in place of the exposure in the second-stage hazard model to recover a valid estimate of the treatment effect of interest. The second method is a so-called control function approach, which entails adding to the additive hazards outcome model, the residual from a first-stage regression of the exposure on the IV. Formal conditions are given justifying each strategy, and the methods are illustrated in a novel application to a Mendelian randomization study to evaluate the effect of diabetes on mortality using data from the Health and Retirement Study. We also establish that analogous strategies can also be used under a proportional hazards model specification, provided the outcome is rare over the entire follow-up.

Inference for the conditional association between an exposure and a time-to-event endpoint, given covariates, is routinely based on partial likelihood estimators for hazard ratios indexing Cox proportional hazards models. This approach is flexible and makes testing straightforward, but is nonetheless not entirely satisfactory. First, there is no good understanding of what it infers when the model is misspecified. Second, it is common to employ variable selection procedures when deciding which model to use. However, the bias and uncertainty that imperfect variable selection adds to the analysis is rarely acknowledged, rendering standard inferences biased and overly optimistic. To remedy this, we propose a nonparametric estimand which reduces to the main exposure effect parameter in a (partially linear) Cox model when that model is correct, but continues to capture the (conditional) association of interest in a well understood way, even when this model is misspecified in an arbitrary manner. We achieve an assumption-lean inference for this estimand based on its influence function under the nonparametric model. This has the further advantage that it makes the proposed approach amenable to the use of data-adaptive procedures (e.g., variable selection, machine learning), which we find to work well in simulation studies and a data analysis. for this article are available online. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cox's proportional hazards model is one of the most popular statistical models to evaluate associations of exposure with a censored failure time outcome. When confounding factors are not fully observed, the exposure hazard ratio estimated using a Cox model is subject to unmeasured confounding bias. To address this, we propose a novel approach for the identification and estimation of the causal hazard ratio in the presence of unmeasured confounding factors. Our approach is based on a binary instrumental variable, and an additional no‐interaction assumption in a first‐stage regression of the treatment on the IV and unmeasured confounders. We propose, to the best of our knowledge, the first consistent estimator of the (population) causal hazard ratio within an instrumental variable framework. A version of our estimator admits a closed‐form representation. We derive the asymptotic distribution of our estimator and provide a consistent estimator for its asymptotic variance. Our approach is illustrated via simulation studies and a data application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides guidance for researchers with some mathematical background on the conduct of time-to-event analysis in observational studies based on intensity (hazard) models. Discussions of basic concepts like time axis, event definition and censoring are given. Hazard models are introduced, with special emphasis on the Cox proportional hazards regression model. We provide check lists that may be useful both when fitting the model and assessing its goodness of fit and when interpreting the results. Special attention is paid to how to avoid problems with immortal time bias by introducing time-dependent covariates. We discuss prediction based on hazard models and difficulties when attempting to draw proper causal conclusions from such models. Finally, we present a series of examples where the methods and check lists are exemplified. Computational details and implementation using the freely available R software are documented in Supplementary Material. The paper was prepared as part of the STRATOS initiative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although mean residual lifetime is often of interest in biomedical studies, restricted mean residual lifetime must be considered in order to accommodate censoring. Differences in the restricted mean residual lifetime can be used as an appropriate quantity for comparing different treatment groups with respect to their survival times. In observational studies where the factor of interest is not randomized, covariate adjustment is needed to take into account imbalances in confounding factors. In this article, we develop an estimator for the average causal treatment difference using the restricted mean residual lifetime as target parameter. We account for confounding factors using the Aalen additive hazards model. Large sample property of the proposed estimator is established and simulation studies are conducted in order to assess small sample performance of the resulting estimator. The method is also applied to an observational data set of patients after an acute myocardial infarction event. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Skin wounds are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Data are, however, not readily available for benchmarking, to allow prognostic evaluation, and to suggest when involvement of wound-healing experts is indicated. We, therefore, conducted an observational cohort study to investigate wound healing and all-cause mortality associated with different types of skin wounds. Consecutive skin wound patients who received wound care by home-care nurses from January 2010 to December 2011 in a district in Eastern Denmark were included in this study. Patients were followed until wound healing, death, or the end of follow-up on December 2012. In total, 958 consecutive patients received wound care by home-care nurses, corresponding to a 1-year prevalence of 1.2% of the total population in the district. During the study, wound healing was achieved in 511 (53.3%), whereas 90 (9.4%) died. During the first 3 weeks of therapy, healing was most likely to occur in surgical wounds (surgical vs. other wounds: adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 2.21, 95% confidence interval 1.50-3.23), while from 3 weeks to 3 months of therapy, cancer wounds, and pressure ulcers were least likely to heal (cancer vs. other wounds: AHR 0.12, 0.03-0.50; pressure vs. other wounds: AHR 0.44, 0.27-0.74). Cancer wounds and pressure ulcers were further associated with a three times increased probability of mortality compared with other wounds (cancer vs. other wounds: AHR 3.19, 1.35-7.50; pressure vs. other wounds: AHR 2.91, 1.56-5.42). In summary, the wound type was found to be a significant predictor of healing and mortality with cancer wounds and pressure ulcers being associated with poor prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A simple summary of a treatment effect is attractive, which is part of the explanation of the success of the Cox model when analysing time-to-event data since the relative risk measure is such a convenient summary measure. In practice, however, the Cox model may fail to give a reasonable fit, very often because of time-changing treatment effect. The Aalen additive hazards model may be a good alternative as time-changing effects are easily modelled within this model, but results are then evidently more complicated to communicate. In such situations, the odds of concordance measure (OC) is a convenient way of communicating results, and recently showed how a variant of the OC measure may be estimated based on the Aalen additive hazards model. In this study, we propose an estimator that should be preferred in observational studies as it always estimates the causal effect on the chosen scale, only assuming that there are no un-measured confounders. The resulting estimator is shown to be consistent and asymptotically normal, and an estimator of its limiting variance is provided. Two real applications are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary. We extend the definition of the controlled direct effect of a point exposure on a survival outcome, other than through some given, time-fixed intermediate variable, to the additive hazard scale. We propose two-stage estimators for this effect when the exposure is dichotomous and randomly assigned and when the association between the intermediate variable and the survival outcome is confounded only by measured factors, which may themselves be affected by the exposure. The first stage of the estimation procedure involves assessing the effect of the intermediate variable on the survival outcome via Aalen's additive regression for the event time, given exposure, intermediate variable and confounders. The second stage involves applying Aalen's additive model, given the exposure alone, to a modified stochastic process (i.e. a modification of the observed counting process based on the first-stage estimates). We give the large sample properties of the estimator proposed and investigate its small sample properties by Monte Carlo simulation. A real data example is provided for illustration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers covariate selection for the additive hazards model. This model is particularly simple to study theoretically and its practical implementation has several major advantages to the similar methodology for the proportional hazards model. One complication compared with the proportional model is, however, that there is no simple likelihood to work with. We here study a least squares criterion with desirable properties and show how this criterion can be interpreted as a prediction error. Given this criterion, we define ridge and Lasso estimators as well as an adaptive Lasso and study their large sample properties for the situation where the number of covariates p is smaller than the number of observations. We also show that the adaptive Lasso has the oracle property. In many practical situations, it is more relevant to tackle the situation with large p compared with the number of observations. We do this by studying the properties of the so-called Dantzig selector in the setting of the additive risk model. Specifically, we establish a bound on how close the solution is to a true sparse signal in the case where the number of covariates is large. In a simulation study, we also compare the Dantzig and adaptive Lasso for a moderate to small number of covariates. The methods are applied to a breast cancer data set with gene expression recordings and to the primary biliary cirrhosis clinical data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current status data arise when the exact timing of an event is unobserved, and it is only known at a given point in time whether or not the event has occurred. Recently Lin et al. (1998) studied the additive semiparametric hazards model for current status data. They showed that the analysis of current status data under the additive hazards model reduces to ordinary Cox regression under the assumption that a proportional hazards model may be used to describe the monitoring intensity. This analysis does not make efficient use of data, and in some cases it may not be appropriate to assume a proportional hazards model for the monitoring times. We study the semiparametric hazards model for current status data but make use of the semiparametric efficient score function. The suggested approach has the advantages that it is efficient in that it reaches the semiparametric information bound, and it does not involve any modelling of the monitoring times. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]