The built-in selection bias of hazard ratios formalized using structural causal models

Non-collapsibility and built-in selection bias of period-specific and conventional hazard ratio in randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The hazard ratio of the Cox proportional hazards model is widely used in randomized controlled trials to assess treatment effects. However, two properties of the hazard ratio including the non-collapsibility and built-in selection bias need to be further investigated.

METHODS

We conduct simulations to differentiate the non-collapsibility effect and built-in selection bias from the difference between the marginal and the conditional hazard ratio. Meanwhile, we explore the performance of the Cox model with inverse probability of treatment weighting for covariate adjustment when estimating the marginal hazard ratio. The built-in selection bias is further assessed in the period-specific hazard ratio.

RESULTS

The conditional hazard ratio is a biased estimate of the marginal effect due to the non-collapsibility property. In contrast, the hazard ratio estimated from the inverse probability of treatment weighting Cox model provides an unbiased estimate of the true marginal hazard ratio. The built-in selection bias only manifests in the period-specific hazard ratios even when the proportional hazards assumption is satisfied. The Cox model with inverse probability of treatment weighting can be used to account for confounding bias and provide an unbiased effect under the randomized controlled trials setting when the parameter of interest is the marginal effect.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose that the period-specific hazard ratios should always be avoided due to the profound effects of built-in selection bias.

Bias of the additive hazard model in the presence of causal effect heterogeneity

Hazard ratios are prone to selection bias, compromising their use as causal estimands. On the other hand, if Aalen's additive hazard model applies, the hazard difference has been shown to remain unaffected by the selection of frailty factors over time. Then, in the absence of confounding, observed hazard differences are equal in expectation to the causal hazard differences. However, in the presence of effect (on the hazard) heterogeneity, the observed hazard difference is also affected by selection of survivors. In this work, we formalize how the observed hazard difference (from a randomized controlled trial) evolves by selecting favourable levels of effect modifiers in the exposed group and thus deviates from the causal effect of interest. Such selection may result in a non-linear integrated hazard difference curve even when the individual causal effects are time-invariant. Therefore, a homogeneous time-varying causal additive effect on the hazard cannot be distinguished from a time-invariant but heterogeneous causal effect. We illustrate this causal issue by studying the effect of chemotherapy on the survival time of patients suffering from carcinoma of the oropharynx using data from a clinical trial. The hazard difference can thus not be used as an appropriate measure of the causal effect without making untestable assumptions.