Comparison of dynamic treatment regimes via inverse probability weighting.

Appropriate analysis of observational data is our best chance to obtain answers to many questions that involve dynamic treatment regimes. This paper describes a simple method to compare dynamic treatment regimes by artificially censoring subjects and then using inverse probability weighting (IPW) to adjust for any selection bias introduced by the artificial censoring. The basic strategy can be summarized in four steps: 1) define two regimes of interest, 2) artificially censor individuals when they stop following one of the regimes of interest, 3) estimate inverse probability weights to adjust for the potential selection bias introduced by censoring in the previous step, 4) compare the survival of the uncensored individuals under each regime of interest by fitting an inverse probability weighted Cox proportional hazards model with the dichotomous regime indicator and the baseline confounders as covariates. In the absence of model misspecification, the method is valid provided data are available on all time-varying and baseline joint predictors of survival and regime discontinuation. We present an application of the method to compare the AIDS-free survival under two dynamic treatment regimes in a large prospective study of HIV-infected patients. The paper concludes by discussing the relative advantages and disadvantages of censoring/IPW versus g-estimation of nested structural models to compare dynamic regimes.

[1]  Thompson Wa.  On the treatment of grouped observations in life studies. , 1977 .

[2]  W. A. Thompson,et al.  On the treatment of grouped observations in life studies. , 1977, Biometrics.

[3]  M A Fischl,et al.  A controlled trial of two nucleoside analogues plus indinavir in persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection and CD4 cell counts of 200 per cubic millimeter or less. AIDS Clinical Trials Group 320 Study Team. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  R. Gulick.  Assessing the Benefits of Antiretroviral Therapy , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[5]  M. Kazatchkine,et al.  Clinical Outcome of Patients with HIV-1 Infection according to Immunologic and Virologic Response after 6 Months of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[6]  J. Robins,et al.  Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men. , 2000, Epidemiology.

[7]  J. Robins,et al.  Marginal Structural Models to Estimate the Joint Causal Effect of Nonrandomized Treatments , 2001 .

[8]  J. Robins.  Analytic Methods for Estimating HIV-Treatment and Cofactor Effects , 2002 .

[9]  J. Robins,et al.  Effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy on time to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or death using marginal structural models. , 2003, American journal of epidemiology.

[10]  S. Murphy,et al.  Optimal dynamic treatment regimes , 2003 .

[11]  J. Robins,et al.  A Structural Approach to Selection Bias , 2004, Epidemiology.

[12]  James M. Robins,et al.  Optimal Structural Nested Models for Optimal Sequential Decisions , 2004 .

[13]  Jonathan AC Sterne,et al.  Long-term effectiveness of potent antiretroviral therapy in preventing AIDS and death: a prospective cohort study , 2005, The Lancet.

[14]  J. Robins,et al.  Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/pds.1064 , 2022 .

[15]  Marshall M Joffe,et al.  History-Adjusted Marginal Structural Models and Statically-Optimal Dynamic Treatment Regimens , 2005 .

[16]  J. Robins,et al.  Doubly Robust Estimation in Missing Data and Causal Inference Models , 2005, Biometrics.