Statistical Learning of Origin-Specific Statically Optimal Individualized Treatment Rules

Consider a longitudinal observational or controlled study in which one collects chronological data over time on a random sample of subjects. The time-dependent process one observes on each subject contains time-dependent covariates, time-dependent treatment actions, and an outcome process or single final outcome of interest. A statically optimal individualized treatment rule (as introduced in van der Laan et. al. (2005), Petersen et. al. (2007)) is a treatment rule which at any point in time conditions on a user-supplied subset of the past, computes the future static treatment regimen that maximizes a (conditional) mean future outcome of interest, and applies the first treatment action of the latter regimen. In particular, Petersen et. al. (2007) clarified that, in order to be statically optimal, an individualized treatment rule should not depend on the observed treatment mechanism. Petersen et. al. (2007) further developed estimators of statically optimal individualized treatment rules based on a past capturing all confounding of past treatment history on outcome. In practice, however, one typically wishes to find individualized treatment rules responding to a user-supplied subset of the complete observed history, which may not be sufficient to capture all confounding. The current article provides an important advance on Petersen et. al. (2007) by developing locally efficient double robust estimators of statically optimal individualized treatment rules responding to such a user-supplied subset of the past. However, failure to capture all confounding comes at a price; the static optimality of the resulting rules becomes origin-specific. We explain origin-specific static optimality, and discuss the practical importance of the proposed methodology. We further present the results of a data analysis in which we estimate a statically optimal rule for switching antiretroviral therapy among patients infected with resistant HIV virus.

[1]  James M. Robins,et al.  Causal Inference from Complex Longitudinal Data , 1997 .

[2]  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 .

[3]  Mark J van der Laan,et al.  History-adjusted marginal structural models for estimating time-varying effect modification. , 2007, American journal of epidemiology.

[4]  S. Deeks,et al.  Treatment of antiretroviral-drug-resistant HIV-1 infection , 2003, The Lancet.

[5]  J. Robins.  Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using structural nested mean models , 1994 .

[6]  J. Robins,et al.  Recovery of Information and Adjustment for Dependent Censoring Using Surrogate Markers , 1992 .

[7]  J. Robins,et al.  Comparison of dynamic treatment regimes via inverse probability weighting. , 2006, Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology.

[8]  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 .

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

[10]  M. J. van der Laan,et al.  The International Journal of Biostatistics Causal Effect Models for Realistic Individualized Treatment and Intention to Treat Rules , 2011 .

[11]  J. Robins,et al.  Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology , 2000, Epidemiology.

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

[13]  Erica E M Moodie,et al.  Demystifying Optimal Dynamic Treatment Regimes , 2007, Biometrics.

[14]  James M. Robins,et al.  Marginal Structural Models versus Structural nested Models as Tools for Causal inference , 2000 .

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

[16]  J M Robins,et al.  Marginal Mean Models for Dynamic Regimes , 2001, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[17]  J. J. Henning,et al.  Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-Infected Adults and Adolescents, January 28, 2000 , 1998, HIV clinical trials.

[18]  J. Robins.  Addendum to “a new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect” , 1987 .

[19]  Philip W. Lavori,et al.  A design for testing clinical strategies: biased adaptive within‐subject randomization , 2000 .

[20]  James M. Robins,et al.  Unified Methods for Censored Longitudinal Data and Causality , 2003 .

[21]  J. Robins.  Errata to “a new approach to causal intefence in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect” Mathl Modelling 7(9–12), 1393–1512 (1986) , 1987 .

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

[23]  Mark J van der Laan,et al.  Individualized treatment rules: Generating candidate clinical trials , 2007, Statistics in medicine.