Estimating Subgroup Effects in Generalizability and Transportability Analyses

Interventional probability of causation (IPoC) with epidemiological and partial mechanistic evidence: benzene vs. formaldehyde and acute myeloid leukemia (AML)

INTRODUCTION

Causal epidemiology for regulatory risk analysis seeks to evaluate how removing or reducing exposures would change disease occurrence rates. We define interventional probability of causation (IPoC) as the change in probability of a disease (or other harm) occurring over a lifetime or other specified time interval that would be caused by a specified change in exposure, as predicted by a fully specified causal model. We define the closely related concept of causal assigned share (CAS) as the predicted fraction of disease risk that would be removed or prevented by a specified reduction in exposure, holding other variables fixed. Traditional approaches used to evaluate the preventable risk implications of epidemiological associations, including population attributable fraction (PAF) and the Bradford Hill considerations, cannot reveal whether removing a risk factor would reduce disease incidence. We argue that modern formal causal models coupled with causal artificial intelligence (CAI) and realistically partial and imperfect knowledge of underlying disease mechanisms, show great promise for determining and quantifying IPoC and CAS for exposures and diseases of practical interest.

METHODS

We briefly review key CAI concepts and terms and then apply them to define IPoC and CAS. We present steps to quantify IPoC using a fully specified causal Bayesian network (BN) model. Useful bounds for quantitative IPoC and CAS calculations are derived for a two-stage clonal expansion (TSCE) model for carcinogenesis and illustrated by applying them to benzene and formaldehyde based on available epidemiological and partial mechanistic evidence.

RESULTS

Causal BN models for benzene and risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) incorporating mechanistic, toxicological and epidemiological findings show that prolonged high-intensity exposure to benzene can increase risk of AML (IPoC of up to 7e-5, CAS of up to 54%). By contrast, no causal pathway leading from formaldehyde exposure to increased risk of AML was identified, consistent with much previous mechanistic, toxicological and epidemiological evidence; therefore, the IPoC and CAS for formaldehyde-induced AML are likely to be zero.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the IPoC approach can differentiate between likely and unlikely causal factors and can provide useful upper bounds for IPoC and CAS for some exposures and diseases of practical importance. For causal factors, IPoC can help to estimate the quantitative impacts on health risks of reducing exposures, even in situations where mechanistic evidence is realistically incomplete and individual-level exposure-response parameters are uncertain. This illustrates the strength that can be gained for causal inference by using causal models to generate testable hypotheses and then obtaining toxicological data to test the hypotheses implied by the models-and, where necessary, refine the models. This virtuous cycle provides additional insight into causal determinations that may not be available from weight-of-evidence considerations alone.

Quantifying and reducing inequity in average treatment effect estimation

BACKGROUND

Across studies of average treatment effects, some population subgroups consistently have lower representation than others which can lead to discrepancies in how well results generalize.

METHODS

We develop a framework for quantifying inequity due to systemic disparities in sample representation and a method for mitigation during data analysis. Assuming subgroup treatment effects are exchangeable, an unbiased sample average treatment effect estimator will have lower mean-squared error, on average across studies, for subgroups with less representation when treatment effects vary. We present a method for estimating average treatment effects in representation-adjusted samples which enables subgroups to optimally leverage information from the full sample rather than only their own subgroup's data. Two approaches for specifying representation adjustment are offered-one minimizes average mean-squared error for each subgroup separately and the other balances minimization of mean-squared error and equal representation. We conduct simulation studies to compare the performance of the proposed estimators to several subgroup-specific estimators.

RESULTS

We find that the proposed estimators generally provide lower mean squared error, particularly for smaller subgroups, relative to the other estimators. As a case study, we apply this method to a subgroup analysis from a published study.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend the use of the proposed estimators to mitigate the impact of disparities in representation, though structural change is ultimately needed.

Regression-based estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects when extending inferences from a randomized trial to a target population

Most work on extending (generalizing or transporting) inferences from a randomized trial to a target population has focused on estimating average treatment effects (i.e., averaged over the target population's covariate distribution). Yet, in the presence of strong effect modification by baseline covariates, the average treatment effect in the target population may be less relevant for guiding treatment decisions. Instead, the conditional average treatment effect (CATE) as a function of key effect modifiers may be a more useful estimand. Recent work on estimating target population CATEs using baseline covariate, treatment, and outcome data from the trial and covariate data from the target population only allows for the examination of heterogeneity over distinct subgroups. We describe flexible pseudo-outcome regression modeling methods for estimating target population CATEs conditional on discrete or continuous baseline covariates when the trial is embedded in a sample from the target population (i.e., in nested trial designs). We construct pointwise confidence intervals for the CATE at a specific value of the effect modifiers and uniform confidence bands for the CATE function. Last, we illustrate the methods using data from the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) to estimate CATEs given history of myocardial infarction and baseline ejection fraction value in the target population of all trial-eligible patients with stable ischemic heart disease.

Assessments of the Value of New Interventions Should Include Health Equity Impact

A formal evaluation of the health equity impact of a new intervention is hardly ever performed as part of a health technology assessment to understand its value. This should change, in our view. An evidence-based quantitative assessment of the health equity impact can help decision makers develop coverage policies, programme designs, and quality initiatives focused on optimizing both total health and health equity given the treatment options available. We outline the conceptual basis of how a new intervention can impact health equity and adopt distributional cost-effectiveness analysis based on decision-analytic models to assess this quantitatively, using a newly US FDA-approved drug for Alzheimer's disease (aducanumab) as an example. We argue that gaps in the evidence base for the new intervention, for example, due to limited clinical research participation among racial and ethnic minority groups, do not preclude such an evaluation. Understanding these uncertainties has implications for fair pricing, decision making, and future research. If we are serious about population-level decision making that not only is focused on improving total health but also aims to improve health equity, we should consider routinely assessing the health equity impact of new interventions.