Analyses of ‘change scores’ do not estimate causal effects in observational data

Abstract Background In longitudinal data, it is common to create ‘change scores’ by subtracting measurements taken at baseline from those taken at follow-up, and then to analyse the resulting ‘change’ as the outcome variable. In observational data, this approach can produce misleading causal-effect estimates. The present article uses directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) and simple simulations to provide an accessible explanation for why change scores do not estimate causal effects in observational data. Methods Data were simulated to match three general scenarios in which the outcome variable at baseline was a (i) ‘competing exposure’ (i.e. a cause of the outcome that is neither caused by nor causes the exposure), (ii) confounder or (iii) mediator for the total causal effect of the exposure variable at baseline on the outcome variable at follow-up. Regression coefficients were compared between change-score analyses and the appropriate estimator(s) for the total and/or direct causal effect(s). Results Change-score analyses do not provide meaningful causal-effect estimates unless the baseline outcome variable is a ‘competing exposure’ for the effect of the exposure on the outcome at follow-up. Where the baseline outcome is a confounder or mediator, change-score analyses evaluate obscure estimands, which may diverge substantially in magnitude and direction from the total and direct causal effects. Conclusion Future observational studies that seek causal-effect estimates should avoid analysing change scores and adopt alternative analytical strategies

Use of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to identify confounders in applied health research: review and recommendations

Abstract Background Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are an increasingly popular approach for identifying confounding variables that require conditioning when estimating causal effects. This review examined the use of DAGs in applied health research to inform recommendations for improving their transparency and utility in future research. Methods Original health research articles published during 1999–2017 mentioning ‘directed acyclic graphs’ (or similar) or citing DAGitty were identified from Scopus, Web of Science, Medline and Embase. Data were extracted on the reporting of: estimands, DAGs and adjustment sets, alongside the characteristics of each article’s largest DAG. Results A total of 234 articles were identified that reported using DAGs. A fifth (n = 48, 21%) reported their target estimand(s) and half (n = 115, 48%) reported the adjustment set(s) implied by their DAG(s). Two-thirds of the articles (n = 144, 62%) made at least one DAG available. DAGs varied in size but averaged 12 nodes [interquartile range (IQR): 9–16, range: 3–28] and 29 arcs (IQR: 19–42, range: 3–99). The median saturation (i.e. percentage of total possible arcs) was 46% (IQR: 31–67, range: 12–100). 37% (n = 53) of the DAGs included unobserved variables, 17% (n = 25) included ‘super-nodes’ (i.e. nodes containing more than one variable) and 34% (n = 49) were visually arranged so that the constituent arcs flowed in the same direction (e.g. top-to-bottom). Conclusion There is substantial variation in the use and reporting of DAGs in applied health research. Although this partly reflects their flexibility, it also highlights some potential areas for improvement. This review hence offers several recommendations to improve the reporting and use of DAGs in future research

DAG-informed regression modelling, agent-based modelling, and microsimulation modelling: A critical comparison of methods for causal inference

The current paradigm for causal inference in epidemiology relies primarily on the evaluation of counterfactual contrasts via statistical regression models informed by graphical causal models (often in the form of directed acyclic graphs, or DAGs) and their underlying mathematical theory. However, there have been growing calls for supplementary methods, and one such method that has been proposed is agent-based modelling due to its potential for simulating counterfactuals. However, within the epidemiological literature there currently exists a general lack of clarity regarding what exactly agent-based modelling is (and is not) and, importantly, how it differs from microsimulation modelling – perhaps its closest methodological comparator. We clarify this distinction by briefly reviewing the history of each method, which provides context for their similarities and differences, and casts light on the types of research questions that they have evolved (and thus are well-suited) to answering; we do the same for DAG-informed regression methods. The distinct historical evolutions of DAG-informed regression modelling, microsimulation modelling, and agent-based modelling have given rise to distinct features of the methods themselves, and provide a foundation for critical comparison. Not only are the three methods well-suited to addressing different types of causal questions, but in doing so they place differing levels of emphasis on fixed and random effects, and also tend to operate on different timescales and in different timeframes

Assessing spatiotemporal variability in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk for hospital workers using routinely-collected data.

The COVID-19 pandemic has emphasised the need to rapidly assess infection risks for healthcare workers within the hospital environment. Using data from the first year of the pandemic, we investigated whether an individual's COVID-19 test result was associated with behavioural markers derived from routinely collected hospital data two weeks prior to a test. The temporal and spatial context of behaviours were important, with the highest risks of infection during the first wave, for staff in contact with a greater number of patients and those with greater levels of activity on floors handling the majority of COVID-19 patients. Infection risks were higher for BAME staff and individuals working more shifts. Night shifts presented higher risks of infection between waves of COVID-19 patients. Our results demonstrate the epidemiological relevance of deriving markers of staff behaviour from electronic records, which extend beyond COVID-19 with applications for other communicable diseases and in supporting pandemic preparedness

Estimating the effects of lockdown timing on COVID-19 cases and deaths in England: a counterfactual modelling study

Background: during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United Kingdom experienced one of the highest per-capita death tolls worldwide. It is debated whether this may partly be explained by the relatively late initiation of voluntary social distancing and mandatory lockdown measures. In this study, we used simulations to estimate the number of cases and deaths that would have occurred in England by 1 June 2020 if these interventions had been implemented one or two weeks earlier, and the impact on the required duration of lockdown.Methods: using official reported data on the number of Pillar 1 lab-confirmed cases of COVID-19 and associated deaths occurring in England from 3 March to 1 June, we modelled: the natural (i.e. observed) growth of cases, and the counterfactual (i.e. hypothetical) growth of cases that would have occurred had measures been implemented one or two weeks earlier. Under each counterfactual condition, we estimated the expected number of deaths and the time required to reach the incidence observed under natural growth on 1 June.Results: introducing measures one week earlier would have reduced by 74% the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in England by 1 June, resulting in approximately 21,000 fewer hospital deaths and 34,000 fewer total deaths; the required time spent in full lockdown could also have been halved, from 69 to 35 days. Acting two weeks earlier would have reduced cases by 93%, resulting in between 26,000 and 43,000 fewer deaths.Conclusions: our modelling supports the claim that the relatively late introduction of social distancing and lockdown measures likely increased the scale, severity, and duration of the first wave of COVID-19 in England. Our results highlight the importance of acting swiftly to minimise the spread of an infectious disease when case numbers are increasing exponentially

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to 1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundSparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis.MethodsPROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850.FindingsBetween Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals.InterpretationOver 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Sparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis. Methods PROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals. Interpretation Over 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function.</p