Comparing competing risk outcomes within principal strata, with application to studies of mother-to-child transmission of HIV

Post-randomization Biomarker Effect Modification Analysis in an HIV Vaccine Clinical Trial

While the HVTN 505 trial showed no overall efficacy of the tested vaccine to prevent HIV infection over placebo, markers measuring immune response to vaccination were strongly correlated with infection. This finding generated the hypothesis that some marker-defined vaccinated subgroups were partially protected whereas others had their risk increased. This hypothesis can be assessed using the principal stratification framework (Frangakis and Rubin, 2002) for studying treatment effect modification by an intermediate response variable, using methods in the sub-field of principal surrogate (PS) analysis that studies multiple principal strata. Unfortunately, available methods for PS analysis require an augmented study design not available in HVTN 505, and make untestable structural risk assumptions, motivating a need for more robust PS methods. Fortunately, another sub-field of principal stratification, survivor average causal effect (SACE) analysis (Rubin, 2006) - which studies effects in a single principal stratum - provides many methods not requiring an augmented design and making fewer assumptions. We show how, for a binary intermediate response variable, methods developed for SACE analysis can be adapted to PS analysis, providing new and more robust PS methods. Application to HVTN 505 supports that the vaccine partially protected individuals with vaccine-induced T-cells expressing certain combinations of functions.

Are all biases missing data problems?

Estimating causal effects is a frequent goal of epidemiologic studies. Traditionally, there have been three established systematic threats to consistent estimation of causal effects. These three threats are bias due to confounders, selection, and measurement error. Confounding, selection, and measurement bias have typically been characterized as distinct types of biases. However, each of these biases can also be characterized as missing data problems that can be addressed with missing data solutions. Here we describe how the aforementioned systematic threats arise from missing data as well as review methods and their related assumptions for reducing each bias type. We also link the assumptions made by the reviewed methods to the missing completely at random (MCAR) and missing at random (MAR) assumptions made in the missing data framework that allow for valid inferences to be made based on the observed, incomplete data.

Sharpening bounds on principal effects with covariates

Estimation of treatment effects in randomized studies is often hampered by possible selection bias induced by conditioning on or adjusting for a variable measured post-randomization. One approach to obviate such selection bias is to consider inference about treatment effects within principal strata, that is, principal effects. A challenge with this approach is that without strong assumptions principal effects are not identifiable from the observable data. In settings where such assumptions are dubious, identifiable large sample bounds may be the preferred target of inference. In practice these bounds may be wide and not particularly informative. In this work we consider whether bounds on principal effects can be improved by adjusting for a categorical baseline covariate. Adjusted bounds are considered which are shown to never be wider than the unadjusted bounds. Necessary and sufficient conditions are given for which the adjusted bounds will be sharper (i.e., narrower) than the unadjusted bounds. The methods are illustrated using data from a recent, large study of interventions to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV through breastfeeding. Using a baseline covariate indicating low birth weight, the estimated adjusted bounds for the principal effect of interest are 63% narrower than the estimated unadjusted bounds.