Principal Stratification in Causal Inference

Summary. Many scientific problems require that treatment comparisons be adjusted for posttreatment variables, but the estimands underlying standard methods are not causal effects. To address this deficiency, we propose a general framework for comparing treatments adjusting for posttreatment variables that yields principal effects based on principal stratification. Principal stratification with respect to a posttreatment variable is a cross‐classification of subjects defined by the joint potential values of that posttreatment variable under each of the treatments being compared. Principal effects are causal effects within a principal stratum. The key property of principal strata is that they are not affected by treatment assignment and therefore can be used just as any pretreatment covariate, such as age category. As a result, the central property of our principal effects is that they are always causal effects and do not suffer from the complications of standard posttreatment‐adjusted estimands. We discuss briefly that such principal causal effects are the link between three recent applications with adjustment for posttreatment variables: (i) treatment noncompliance, (ii) missing outcomes (dropout) following treatment noncompliance, and (iii) censoring by death. We then attack the problem of surrogate or biomarker endpoints, where we show, using principal causal effects, that all current definitions of surrogacy, even when perfectly true, do not generally have the desired interpretation as causal effects of treatment on outcome. We go on to formulate estimands based on principal stratification and principal causal effects and show their superiority.

[1]  S G Baker,et al.  Regression analysis of grouped survival data: informative censoring and double sampling. , 1993, Biometrics.

[2]  P Flandre,et al.  Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. , 1999, Statistics in Medicine.

[3]  J. Heckman Dummy Endogenous Variables in a Simultaneous Equation System , 1977 .

[4]  Geert Molenberghs,et al.  Causal Inference in a Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial with Binary Outcome and Ordered Compliance , 1996 .

[5]  R. Prentice Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. , 1989, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  D. Rubin,et al.  Addressing complications of intention-to-treat analysis in the combined presence of all-or-none treatment-noncompliance and subsequent missing outcomes , 1999 .

[7]  Anna C. Balazs,et al.  Influence of adherence to treatment and response of cholesterol on mortality in the coronary drug project. , 1980, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  J. Robins,et al.  Adjusting for differential rates of prophylaxis therapy for PCP in high- versus low-dose AZT treatment arms in an AIDS randomized trial , 1994 .

[9]  Glenn Shafer,et al.  Comments on "Causal Inference without Counterfactuals" by A.P. Dawid , 1999 .

[10]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Addressing an Idiosyncrasy in Estimating Survival Curves Using Double Sampling in the Presence of Self‐Selected Right Censoring , 2001 .

[11]  D. Rubin Assignment to Treatment Group on the Basis of a Covariate , 1976 .

[12]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. , 1998, Biometrics.

[13]  Joshua D. Angrist,et al.  Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables , 1993 .

[14]  J. Robins A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect , 1986 .

[15]  D. Rubin Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. , 1974 .

[16]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Bayesian Inference for Causal Effects: The Role of Randomization , 1978 .

[17]  D B Rubin,et al.  More powerful randomization-based p-values in double-blind trials with non-compliance. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  T. Speed,et al.  On the Application of Probability Theory to Agricultural Experiments. Essay on Principles. Section 9 , 1990 .

[19]  D. DeMets,et al.  Surrogate End Points in Clinical Trials: Are We Being Misled? , 1996, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  D. Rubin,et al.  Assessing the effect of an influenza vaccine in an encouragement design. , 2000, Biostatistics.

[21]  P. Holland Statistics and Causal Inference , 1985 .

[22]  S G Baker,et al.  The paired availability design: a proposal for evaluating epidural analgesia during labor. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[23]  J. Pearl,et al.  Bounds on Treatment Effects from Studies with Imperfect Compliance , 1997 .

[24]  D. Rubin,et al.  Assessing Sensitivity to an Unobserved Binary Covariate in an Observational Study with Binary Outcome , 1983 .

[25]  R J Carroll,et al.  On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. , 2000, Biostatistics.

[26]  W. G. Cochran Analysis of covariance: Its nature and uses. , 1957 .

[27]  P. Rosenbaum The Consequences of Adjustment for a Concomitant Variable that Has Been Affected by the Treatment , 1984 .

[28]  V De Gruttola,et al.  Estimating the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[29]  S. Vansteelandt,et al.  Discussion of 'Clustered encouragement designs with individual noncompliance: Bayesian inference with randomization, and application to advance directive forms' by Frangakis, Rubin and Zhou. , 2002, Biostatistics.

[30]  D. Rubin Comment on "Causal inference without counterfactuals," by Dawid AP , 2000 .

[31]  J M Robins,et al.  Correction for non-compliance in equivalence trials. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[32]  A. P. Dawid,et al.  Causal inference without counterfactuals (with Discussion) , 2000 .

[33]  James J. Heckman,et al.  Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables: Comment , 1996 .

[34]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. , 2000, Biostatistics.

[35]  C. Manski Nonparametric Bounds on Treatment Effects , 1989 .

[36]  A. Dawid Causal Inference without Counterfactuals , 2000 .

[37]  D. Rubin,et al.  School Choice in NY City: A Bayesian Analysis of an Imperfect Randomized Experiment , 2001 .

[38]  D. Rubin,et al.  Bayesian inference for causal effects in randomized experiments with noncompliance , 1997 .

[39]  S. Rössner,et al.  Coronary Drug Project Research Group. , 1978, Atherosclerosis.

[40]  J. Robins,et al.  Identifiability and Exchangeability for Direct and Indirect Effects , 1992, Epidemiology.

[41]  B. Graubard,et al.  Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. , 1992, Statistics in medicine.

[42]  S. Zeger,et al.  On estimating efficacy from clinical trials. , 1991, Statistics in medicine.

[43]  A. Goldberger STRUCTURAL EQUATION METHODS IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES , 1972 .

[44]  J. Robins,et al.  Adjusting for Nonignorable Drop-Out Using Semiparametric Nonresponse Models , 1999 .

[45]  D. Rubin ASSIGNMENT TO TREATMENT GROUP ON THE BASIS OF A COVARIATE , 1976 .

[46]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[47]  J. Thorp Epidural analgesia during labor. , 1999, Clinical obstetrics and gynecology.

[48]  D. Rubin [On the Application of Probability Theory to Agricultural Experiments. Essay on Principles. Section 9.] Comment: Neyman (1923) and Causal Inference in Experiments and Observational Studies , 1990 .