-
Improving subgroup analysis using methods to extend inferences to specific target populations
Authors:
Michael Webster-Clark,
Anthony A. Matthews,
Alan R. Ellis,
Alan C. Kinlaw,
Robert W. Platt
Abstract:
Subgroup analyses are common in epidemiologic and clinical research. Unfortunately, restriction to subgroup members to test for heterogeneity can yield imprecise effect estimates. If the true effect differs between members and non-members due to different distributions of other measured effect measure modifiers (EMMs), leveraging data from non-members can improve the precision of subgroup effect e…
▽ More
Subgroup analyses are common in epidemiologic and clinical research. Unfortunately, restriction to subgroup members to test for heterogeneity can yield imprecise effect estimates. If the true effect differs between members and non-members due to different distributions of other measured effect measure modifiers (EMMs), leveraging data from non-members can improve the precision of subgroup effect estimates. We obtained data from the PRIME RCT of panitumumab in patients with metastatic colon and rectal cancer from Project Datasphere(TM) to demonstrate this method. We weighted non-Hispanic White patients to resemble Hispanic patients in measured potential EMMs (e.g., age, KRAS distribution, sex), combined Hispanic and weighted non-Hispanic White patients in one data set, and estimated 1-year differences in progression-free survival (PFS). We obtained percentile-based 95% confidence limits for this 1-year difference in PFS from 2,000 bootstraps. To show when the method is less helpful, we also reweighted male patients to resemble female patients and mutant-type KRAS (no treatment benefit) patients to resemble wild-type KRAS (treatment benefit) patients. The PRIME RCT included 795 non-Hispanic White and 42 Hispanic patients with complete data on EMMs. While the Hispanic-only analysis estimated a one-year PFS change of -17% (95% C.I. -45%, 8.8%) with panitumumab, the combined weighted estimate was more precise (-8.7%, 95% CI -22%, 5.3%) while differing from the full population estimate (1.0%, 95% CI: -5.9%, 7.5%). When targeting wild-type KRAS patients the combined weighted estimate incorrectly suggested no benefit (one-year PFS change: 0.9%, 95% CI: -6.0%, 7.2%). Methods to extend inferences from study populations to specific targets can improve the precision of estimates of subgroup effect estimates when their assumptions are met. Violations of those assumptions can lead to bias, however.
△ Less
Submitted 9 July, 2024; v1 submitted 12 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
The Complex Estimand of Clone-Censor-Weighting When Studying Treatment Initiation Windows
Authors:
Michael Webster-Clark,
Yi Li,
Sophie Dell Aniello,
Robert W. Platt
Abstract:
Clone-censor-weighting (CCW) is an analytic method for studying treatment regimens that are indistinguishable from one another at baseline without relying on landmark dates or creating immortal person time. One particularly interesting CCW application is estimating outcomes when starting treatment within specific time windows in observational data (e.g., starting a treatment within 30 days of hosp…
▽ More
Clone-censor-weighting (CCW) is an analytic method for studying treatment regimens that are indistinguishable from one another at baseline without relying on landmark dates or creating immortal person time. One particularly interesting CCW application is estimating outcomes when starting treatment within specific time windows in observational data (e.g., starting a treatment within 30 days of hospitalization). In such cases, CCW estimates something fairly complex. We show how using CCW to study a regimen such as "start treatment prior to day 30" estimates the potential outcome of a hypothetical intervention where A) prior to day 30, everyone follows the treatment start distribution of the study population and B) everyone who has not initiated by day 30 initiates on day 30. As a result, the distribution of treatment initiation timings provides essential context for the results of CCW studies. We also show that if the exposure effect varies over time, ignoring exposure history when estimating inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW) estimates the risk under an impossible intervention and can create selection bias. Finally, we examine some simplifying assumptions that can make this complex treatment effect more interpretable and allow everyone to contribute to IPCW.
△ Less
Submitted 23 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
Validity of Complete Case Analysis Depends on the Target Population
Authors:
Michael Webster-Clark,
Rachael K Ross
Abstract:
Missing data is a pernicious problem in epidemiologic research. Research on the validity of complete case analysis for missing data has typically focused on estimating the average treatment effect (ATE) in the whole population. However, other target populations like the treated (ATT) or external targets can be of substantive interest. In such cases, whether missing covariate data occurs within or…
▽ More
Missing data is a pernicious problem in epidemiologic research. Research on the validity of complete case analysis for missing data has typically focused on estimating the average treatment effect (ATE) in the whole population. However, other target populations like the treated (ATT) or external targets can be of substantive interest. In such cases, whether missing covariate data occurs within or outside the target population may impact the validity of complete case analysis. We sought to assess bias in complete case analysis when covariate data is missing outside the target (e.g., missing covariate data among the untreated when estimating the ATT). We simulated a study of the effect of a binary treatment X on a binary outcome Y in the presence of 3 confounders C1-C3 that modified the risk difference (RD). We induced missingness in C1 only among the untreated under 4 scenarios: completely randomly (similar to MCAR); randomly based on C2 and C3 (similar to MAR); randomly based on C1 (similar to MNAR); or randomly based on Y (similar to MAR). We estimated the ATE and ATT using weighting and averaged results across the replicates. We conducted a parallel simulation transporting trial results to a target population in the presence of missing covariate data in the trial. In the complete case analysis, estimated ATE was unbiased only when C1 was MCAR among the untreated. The estimated ATT, on the other hand, was unbiased in all scenarios except when Y caused missingness. The parallel simulation of generalizing and transporting trial results saw similar bias patterns. If missing covariate data is only present outside the target population, complete case analysis is unbiased except when missingness is associated with the outcome.
△ Less
Submitted 27 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
