Literature DB >> 29644344

Patient Centered Hazard Ratio Estimation Using Principal Stratification Weights: Application to the NORCCAP Randomized Trial of Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Todd A MacKenzie1, Magnus Løberg2, A James O'Malley1.   

Abstract

In randomized trials, the most commonly reported method of effect estimation is intention-to-treat (ITT), and to a lesser extent the per-protocol. The ITT is preferred because it is an unbiased estimator of the effect of treatment assignment. However, if there is any non-adherence the ITT is a biased estimate of the treatment effect, defined as the contrast between the potential outcome if treated versus the potential outcome if not treated. The treatment effect is most relevant to patients. Principal stratification is a framework for estimating treatment effects that combines potential outcomes and latent adherence strata. It yields an unbiased estimator of the complier average causal effect (CACE) for a difference in means or proportions, in the setting of all-or-nothing adherence. This paper addresses estimation of the causal hazard ratio for the compliers in a setting of right censoring of a time-to-event. We propose a novel approach to operationalizing principal stratification using weights. We report the results of simulations that vary the amount of adherence and selection bias that show the hazard ratio estimators we propose have minimal bias compared to the ITT, and per-protocol estimators. We demonstrate the approach using a population based randomized controlled trial of colorectal cancer screening subject to a high frequency of nonadherence in the screening arm.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cox model; Instrumental Variables; Semi-parametric; Time-to-event analysis

Year:  2016        PMID: 29644344      PMCID: PMC5891167     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obs Stud


  17 in total

1.  Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods.

Authors:  Thérèse A Stukel; Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; David A Alter; Daniel J Gottlieb; Marian J Vermeulen
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-01-17       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Instrumental variable analysis for estimation of treatment effects with dichotomous outcomes.

Authors:  Jeremy A Rassen; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Robert J Glynn; Murray A Mittleman; M Alan Brookhart
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-11-25       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Use of instrumental variables in the analysis of generalized linear models in the presence of unmeasured confounding with applications to epidemiological research.

Authors:  K M Johnston; P Gustafson; A R Levy; P Grootendorst
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Two-stage instrumental variable methods for estimating the causal odds ratio: analysis of bias.

Authors:  Bing Cai; Dylan S Small; Thomas R Ten Have
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Inference for the effect of treatment on survival probability in randomized trials with noncompliance and administrative censoring.

Authors:  Hui Nie; Jing Cheng; Dylan S Small
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2011-03-08       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Does Cox analysis of a randomized survival study yield a causal treatment effect?

Authors:  Odd O Aalen; Richard J Cook; Kjetil Røysland
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 1.588

7.  Principal stratification: a broader vision.

Authors:  Ian Shrier; Jay S Kaufman; Robert W Platt; Russell J Steele
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2013-10-11       Impact factor: 0.968

8.  Instrumental variable additive hazards models.

Authors:  Jialiang Li; Jason Fine; Alan Brookhart
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Instrumental variable estimation in a survival context.

Authors:  Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen; Stefan Walter; Stijn Vansteelandt; Torben Martinussen; Maria Glymour
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 4.822

10.  Mechanical versus manual chest compression for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (PARAMEDIC): a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Gavin D Perkins; Ranjit Lall; Tom Quinn; Charles D Deakin; Matthew W Cooke; Jessica Horton; Sarah E Lamb; Anne-Marie Slowther; Malcolm Woollard; Andy Carson; Mike Smyth; Richard Whitfield; Amanda Williams; Helen Pocock; John J M Black; John Wright; Kyee Han; Simon Gates
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-11-16       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  2 in total

1.  A causal proportional hazards estimator under homogeneous or heterogeneous selection in an IV setting.

Authors:  Ditte Nørbo Sørensen; Torben Martinussen; Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen
Journal:  Lifetime Data Anal       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 1.588

2.  Causal Proportional Hazards Estimation with a Binary Instrumental Variable.

Authors:  Behzad Kianian; Jung In Kim; Jason P Fine; Limin Peng
Journal:  Stat Sin       Date:  2021-04       Impact factor: 1.261

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.