Summary

A treatment regime is a rule that assigns a treatment, among a set of possible treatments, to a patient as a function of his/her observed characteristics, hence “personalizing” treatment to the patient. The goal is to identify the optimal treatment regime that, if followed by the entire population of patients, would lead to the best outcome on average. Given data from a clinical trial or observational study, for a single treatment decision, the optimal regime can be found by assuming a regression model for the expected outcome conditional on treatment and covariates, where, for a given set of covariates, the optimal treatment is the one that yields the most favorable expected outcome. However, treatment assignment via such a regime is suspect if the regression model is incorrectly specified. Recognizing that, even if misspecified, such a regression model defines a class of regimes, we instead consider finding the optimal regime within such a class by finding the regime the optimizes an estimator of overall population mean outcome. To take into account possible confounding in an observational study and to increase precision, we use a doubly robust augmented inverse probability weighted estimator for this purpose. Simulations and application to data from a breast cancer clinical trial demonstrate the performance of the method.

Mixed models are commonly used to represent longitudinal or repeated measures data. An additional complication arises when the response is censored, for example, due to limits of quantification of the assay used. While Gaussian random effects are routinely assumed, little work has characterized the consequences of misspecifying the random-effects distribution nor has a more flexible distribution been studied for censored longitudinal data. We show that, in general, maximum likelihood estimators will not be consistent when the random-effects density is misspecified, and the effect of misspecification is likely to be greatest when the true random-effects density deviates substantially from normality and the number of noncensored observations on each subject is small. We develop a mixed model framework for censored longitudinal data in which the random effects are represented by the flexible seminonparametric density and show how to obtain estimates in SAS procedure NLMIXED. Simulations show that this approach can lead to reduction in bias and increase in efficiency relative to assuming Gaussian random effects. The methods are demonstrated on data from a study of hepatitis C virus.

Summary

Studies of clinical characteristics frequently measure covariates with a single observation. This may be a mis-measured version of the “true” phenomenon due to sources of variability like biological fluctuations and device error. Descriptive analyses and outcome models that are based on mis-measured data generally will not reflect the corresponding analyses based on the “true” covariate. Many statistical methods are available to adjust for measurement error. Imputation methods like regression calibration and moment reconstruction are easily implemented but are not always adequate. Sophisticated methods have been proposed for specific applications like density estimation, logistic regression, and survival analysis. However, it is frequently infeasible for an analyst to adjust each analysis separately, especially in preliminary studies where resources are limited. We propose an imputation approach called Moment Adjusted Imputation (MAI) that is flexible and relatively automatic. Like other imputation methods, it can be used to adjust a variety of analyses quickly, and it performs well under a broad range of circumstances. We illustrate the method via simulation and apply it to a study of systolic blood pressure and health outcomes in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure.

Summary

A routine challenge is that of making inference on parameters in a statistical model of interest from longitudinal data subject to drop out, which are a special case of the more general setting of monotonely coarsened data. Considerable recent attention has focused on doubly robust estimators, which in this context involve positing models for both the missingness (more generally, coarsening) mechanism and aspects of the distribution of the full data, that have the appealing property of yielding consistent inferences if only one of these models is correctly specified. Doubly robust estimators have been criticized for potentially disastrous performance when both of these models are even only mildly misspecified. We propose a doubly robust estimator applicable in general monotone coarsening problems that achieves comparable or improved performance relative to existing doubly robust methods, which we demonstrate via simulation studies and by application to data from an AIDS clinical trial.

Doubly robust estimation combines a form of outcome regression with a model for the exposure (i.e., the propensity score) to estimate the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. When used individually to estimate a causal effect, both outcome regression and propensity score methods are unbiased only if the statistical model is correctly specified. The doubly robust estimator combines these 2 approaches such that only 1 of the 2 models need be correctly specified to obtain an unbiased effect estimator. In this introduction to doubly robust estimators, the authors present a conceptual overview of doubly robust estimation, a simple worked example, results from a simulation study examining performance of estimated and bootstrapped standard errors, and a discussion of the potential advantages and limitations of this method. The supplementary material for this paper, which is posted on the Journal's Web site (http://aje.oupjournals.org/), includes a demonstration of the doubly robust property (Web Appendix 1) and a description of a SAS macro (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina) for doubly robust estimation, available for download at http://www.unc.edu/∼mfunk/dr/.

The Superior Yield of the New Strategy of Enoxaparin, Revascularization, and GlYcoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (SYNERGY) was a randomized, open-label, multicenter clinical trial comparing 2 anticoagulant drugs on the basis of time-to-event endpoints. In contrast to other studies of these agents, the primary, intent-to-treat analysis did not find evidence of a difference, leading to speculation that premature discontinuation of the study agents by some subjects may have attenuated the apparent treatment effect and thus to interest in inference on the difference in survival distributions were all subjects in the population to follow the assigned regimens, with no discontinuation. Such inference is often attempted via ad hoc analyses that are not based on a formal definition of this treatment effect. We use SYNERGY as a context in which to describe how this effect may be conceptualized and to present a statistical framework in which it may be precisely identified, which leads naturally to inferential methods based on inverse probability weighting.

While marginal models, random-effects models, and conditional models are routinely considered to be the three main modeling families for continuous and discrete repeated measures with linear and generalized linear mean structures, respectively, it is less common to consider non-linear models, let alone frame them within the above taxonomy. In the latter situation, indeed, when considered at all, the focus is often exclusively on random-effects models. In this paper, we consider all three families, exemplify their great flexibility and relative ease of use, and apply them to a simple but illustrative set of data on tree circumference growth of orange trees.

Summary

Considerable recent interest has focused on doubly robust estimators for a population mean response in the presence of incomplete data, which involve models for both the propensity score and the regression of outcome on covariates. The usual doubly robust estimator may yield severely biased inferences if neither of these models is correctly specified and can exhibit nonnegligible bias if the estimated propensity score is close to zero for some observations. We propose alternative doubly robust estimators that achieve comparable or improved performance relative to existing methods, even with some estimated propensity scores close to zero.

Considerable recent interest has focused on doubly robust estimators for a population mean response in the presence of incomplete data, which involve models for both the propensity score and the regression of outcome on covariates. The usual doubly robust estimator may yield severely biased inferences if neither of these models is correctly specified and can exhibit nonnegligible bias if the estimated propensity score is close to zero for some observations. We propose alternative doubly robust estimators that achieve comparable or improved performance relative to existing methods, even with some estimated propensity scores close to zero.

SUMMARY

We propose a procedure for estimating the survival function of a time-to-event random variable under arbitrary patterns of censoring. The method is predicated on the mild assumption that the distribution of the random variable, and hence the survival function, has a density that lies in a class of ‘smooth’ densities whose elements can be represented by an infinite Hermite series. Truncation of the series yields a ‘parametric’ expression that can well-approximate any plausible survival density, and hence survival function, provided the degree of truncation is suitably chosen. The representation admits a convenient expression for the likelihood for the ‘parameters’ in the approximation under arbitrary censoring/truncation that is straightforward to compute and maximize. A test statistic for comparing two survival functions, which is based on an integrated weighted difference of estimates of each under this representation, is proposed. Via simulation studies and application to a number of data sets, we demonstrate that the approach yields reliable inferences and can result in gains in efficiency over traditional nonparametric methods.

SUMMARY

There is considerable debate regarding whether and how covariate adjusted analyses should be used in the comparison of treatments in randomized clinical trials. Substantial baseline covariate information is routinely collected in such trials, and one goal of adjustment is to exploit covariates associated with outcome to increase precision of estimation of the treatment effect. However, concerns are routinely raised over the potential for bias when the covariates used are selected post hoc; and the potential for adjustment based on a model of the relationship between outcome, covariates, and treatment to invite a “fishing expedition” for that leading to the most dramatic effect estimate. By appealing to the theory of semiparametrics, we are led naturally to a characterization of all treatment effect estimators and to principled, practically-feasible methods for covariate adjustment that yield the desired gains in efficiency and that allow covariate relationships to be identified and exploited while circumventing the usual concerns. The methods and strategies for their implementation in practice are presented. Simulation studies and an application to data from an HIV clinical trial demonstrate the performance of the techniques relative to existing methods.

SUMMARY

We propose a similarity-based regression method to detect associations between traits and multimarker genotypes. The model regresses similarity in traits for pairs of ”unrelated” individuals on their haplotype similarities, and detects the significance by a score test for which the limiting distribution is derived. The proposed method allows for covariates, uses phase-independent similarity measures to bypass the needs to impute phase information, and is applicable to traits of general types (e.g., quantitative and qualitative traits). We also show that the gene-trait similarity regression is closely connected with random effects haplotype analysis, although commonly they are considered as separate modeling tools. This connection unites the classic haplotype sharing methods with the variance component approaches, which enables direct derivation of analytical properties of the sharing statistics even when the similarity regression model becomes analytically challenging.

Summary

Joint modeling of a primary response and a longitudinal process via shared random effects is widely used in many areas of application. Likelihood-based inference on joint models requires model specification of the random effects. Inappropriate model specification of random effects can compromise inference. We present methods to diagnose random effect model misspecification of the type that leads to biased inference on joint models. The methods are illustrated via application to simulated data, and by application to data from a study of bone mineral density in perimenopausal women and data from an HIV clinical trial.

The pretest–posttest study is commonplace in numerous applications. Typically, subjects are randomized to two treatments, and response is measured at baseline, prior to intervention with the randomized treatment (pretest), and at prespecified follow-up time (posttest). Interest focuses on the effect of treatments on the change between mean baseline and follow-up response. Missing posttest response for some subjects is routine, and disregarding missing cases can lead to invalid inference. Despite the popularity of this design, a consensus on an appropriate analysis when no data are missing, let alone for taking into account missing follow-up, does not exist. Under a semiparametric perspective on the pretest–posttest model, in which limited distributional assumptions on pretest or posttest response are made, we show how the theory of Robins, Rotnitzky and Zhao may be used to characterize a class of consistent treatment effect estimators and to identify the efficient estimator in the class. We then describe how the theoretical results translate into practice. The development not only shows how a unified framework for inference in this setting emerges from the Robins, Rotnitzky and Zhao theory, but also provides a review and demonstration of the key aspects of this theory in a familiar context. The results are also relevant to the problem of comparing two treatment means with adjustment for baseline covariates.

Summary

A general framework for regression analysis of time-to-event data subject to arbitrary patterns of censoring is proposed. The approach is relevant when the analyst is willing to assume that distributions governing model components that are ordinarily left unspecified in popular semiparametric regression models, such as the baseline hazard function in the proportional hazards model, have densities satisfying mild “smoothness” conditions. Densities are approximated by a truncated series expansion that, for fixed degree of truncation, results in a “parametric” representation, which makes likelihood-based inference coupled with adaptive choice of the degree of truncation, and hence flexibility of the model, computationally and conceptually straightforward with data subject to any pattern of censoring. The formulation allows popular models, such as the proportional hazards, proportional odds, and accelerated failure time models, to be placed in a common framework; provides a principled basis for choosing among them; and renders useful extensions of the models straightforward. The utility and performance of the methods are demonstrated via simulations and by application to data from time-to-event studies.

Summary

The primary goal of a randomized clinical trial is to make comparisons among two or more treatments. For example, in a two-arm trial with continuous response, the focus may be on the difference in treatment means; with more than two treatments, the comparison may be based on pairwise differences. With binary outcomes, pairwise odds-ratios or log-odds ratios may be used. In general, comparisons may be based on meaningful parameters in a relevant statistical model. Standard analyses for estimation and testing in this context typically are based on the data collected on response and treatment assignment only. In many trials, auxiliary baseline covariate information may also be available, and it is of interest to exploit these data to improve the efficiency of inferences. Taking a semiparametric theory perspective, we propose a broadly-applicable approach to adjustment for auxiliary covariates to achieve more efficient estimators and tests for treatment parameters in the analysis of randomized clinical trials. Simulations and applications demonstrate the performance of the methods.

Inference on the association between a primary endpoint and features of longitudinal profiles of a continuous response is of central interest in medical and public health research. Joint models that represent the association through shared dependence of the primary and longitudinal data on random effects are increasingly popular; however, existing inferential methods may be inefficient or sensitive to assumptions on the random effects distribution. We consider a semiparametric joint model that makes only mild assumptions on this distribution and develop likelihood-based inference on the association and distribution, which offers improved performance relative to existing methods that is insensitive to the true random effects distribution. Moreover, the estimated distribution can reveal interesting population features, as we demonstrate for a study of the association between longitudinal hormone levels and bone status in peri-menopausal women.

The goal of this article is to suggest that mathematical models describing biological processes taking place within a patient over time can be used to design adaptive treatment strategies. We demonstrate using the key example of treatment strategies for human immunodeficiency virus Type-1 (HIV) infection. Although there has been considerable progress in management of HIV infection using highly active antiretroviral therapies, continuous treatment with these agents involves significant cost and burden, toxicities, development of drug resistance, and problems with adherence; these latter complications are of particular concern in substanceabusing individuals. This has inspired interest in structured or supervised treatment interruption (STI) strategies, which involve cycles of treatment withdrawal and re-initiation. We argue that the most promising STI strategies are adaptive treatment strategies. We then describe how biological mechanisms governing the interaction over time between HIV and a patient’s immune system may be represented by mathematical models and how control methods applied to these models can be used to design adaptive STI strategies seeking to maintain long-term suppression of the virus. We advocate that, when such mathematical representations of processes underlying a disease or disorder are available, they can be an important tool for suggesting adaptive treatment strategies for clinical study.

Summary

We propose “score-type” tests for the proportional hazards assumption and for covariate effects in the Cox model using the natural smoothing spline representation of the corresponding nonparametric functions of time or covariate. The tests are based on the penalized partial likelihood and are derived by viewing the inverse of the smoothing parameter as a variance component and testing an equivalent null hypothesis that the variance component is zero. We show that the tests have size close to the nominal level and good power against general alternatives, and we apply them to data from a cancer clinical trial.

Summary

The relationship between a primary endpoint and features of longitudinal profiles of a continuous response is often of interest, and a relevant framework is that of a generalized linear model with covariates that are subject-specific random effects in a linear mixed model for the longitudinal measurements. Naive implementation by imputing subject-specific effects from individual regression fits yields biased inference, and several methods for reducing this bias have been proposed. These require a parametric (normality) assumption on the random effects, which may be unrealistic. Adapting a strategy of Stefanski and Carroll (1987 Biometrika 74:703–716), we propose estimators for the generalized linear model parameters that require no assumptions on the random effects and yield consistent inference regardless of the true distribution. The methods are illustrated via simulation and by application to a study of bone mineral density in women transitioning to menopause.