Editorial: Robust Sensitivities

In this issue, the paper by Lash et al, separate commentaries by Greenland and Gustafson, and rejoinder by Lash et al comprise a rare and important example of extended scientific discourse. This set of papers discusses current use of sensitivity analysis, particularly quantitative bias analysis, in the field of Epidemiology

Invited Commentary: Causal Inference Across Space and Time - Quixotic Quest, Worthy Goal, or Both?

The g-formula and agent-based models (ABMs) are 2 approaches used to estimate causal effects. In the current issue of the Journal, Murray et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2017;186(2):131-142) compare the performance of the g-formula and ABMs to estimate causal effects in 3 target populations. In their thoughtful paper, the authors outline several reasons that a causal effect estimated using an ABM may be biased when parameterized from at least 1 source external to the target population. The authors have addressed an important issue in epidemiology: Often causal effect estimates are needed to inform public health decisions in settings without complete data. Because public health decisions are urgent, epidemiologists are frequently called upon to estimate a causal effect from existing data in a separate population rather than perform new data collection activities. The assumptions needed to transport causal effects to a specific target population must be carefully stated and assessed, just as one would explicitly state and analyze the assumptions required to draw internally valid causal inference in a specific study sample. Considering external validity in important target populations increases the impact of epidemiologic studies

The Epidemiologic toolbox: Identifying, honing, and using the right tools for the job

There has been much debate about the relative emphasis of the field of epidemiology on causal inference. We believe this debate does short shrift to the breadth of the field. Epidemiologists answer myriad questions that are not causal and hypothesize about and investigate causal relationships without estimating causal effects. Descriptive studies face significant and often overlooked inferential and interpretational challenges; we briefly articulate some of them and argue that a more detailed treatment of biases that affect single-sample estimation problems would benefit all types of epidemiologic studies. Lumping all questions about causality creates ambiguity about the utility of different conceptual models and causal frameworks; 2 distinct types of causal questions include 1) hypothesis generation and theorization about causal structures and 2) hypothesis-driven causal effect estimation. The potential outcomes framework and causal graph theory help efficiently and reliably guide epidemiologic studies designed to estimate a causal effect to best leverage prior data, avoid cognitive fallacies, minimize biases, and understand heterogeneity in treatment effects. Appropriate matching of theoretical frameworks to research questions can increase the rigor of epidemiologic research and increase the utility of such research to improve public health

A Framework for Descriptive Epidemiology

In this paper, we propose a framework for thinking through the design and conduct of descriptive epidemiologic studies. A well-defined descriptive question aims to quantify and characterize some feature of the health of a population and must clearly state: 1) the target population, characterized by person and place, and anchored in time; 2) the outcome, event, or health state or characteristic; and 3) the measure of occurrence that will be used to summarize the outcome (e.g., incidence, prevalence, average time to event, etc.). Additionally, 4) any auxiliary variables will be prespecified and their roles as stratification factors (to characterize the outcome distribution) or nuisance variables (to be standardized over) will be stated. We illustrate application of this framework to describe the prevalence of viral suppression on December 31, 2019, among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) who had been linked to HIV care in the United States. Application of this framework highlights biases that may arise from missing data, especially 1) differences between the target population and the analytical sample; 2) measurement error; 3) competing events, late entries, loss to follow-up, and inappropriate interpretation of the chosen measure of outcome occurrence; and 4) inappropriate adjustment

Censoring for loss to follow-up in time-to-event analyses of composite outcomes or in the presence of competing risks

Background: In time-to-event analyses, there is limited guidance on when persons who are lost to follow-up (LTFU) should be censored. Methods: We simulated bias in risk estimates for: (1) a composite event of measured (outcome only observable in a patient encounter) and captured events (outcome observable outside a patient encounter); and a (2) measured or (3) captured event in the presence of a competing event of the other type, under three censoring strategies: (i) censor at the last study encounter; (ii) censor when LTFU definition is met; and (iii) a new, hybrid censoring strategy. We demonstrate the real-world impact of this decision by estimating: (1) time to acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) diagnosis or death, (2) time to initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART), and (3) time to death before ART initiation among adults engaged in HIV care. Results: For (1) our hybrid censoring strategy was least biased. In our example, 5-year risk of AIDS or death was overestimated using last-encounter censoring (25%) and under-estimated using LTFU-definition censoring (21%), compared with results from our hybrid approach (24%). Last-encounter censoring was least biased for (2). When estimating 5-year risk of ART initiation, LTFU-definition censoring underestimated risk (80% vs. 85% using last-encounter censoring). LTFU-definition censoring was least biased for (3). When estimating 5-year risk of death before ART initiation, last-encounter censoring overestimated risk (5.2% vs. 4.7% using LTFU-definition censoring). Conclusions: The least biased censoring strategy for time-to-event analyses in the presence of LTFU depends on the event and estimand of interest

Transportability of Trial Results Using Inverse Odds of Sampling Weights

Increasingly, the statistical and epidemiologic literature is focusing beyond issues of internal validity and turning its attention to questions of external validity. Here, we discuss some of the challenges of transporting a causal effect from a randomized trial to a specific target population. We present an inverse odds weighting approach that can easily operationalize transportability. We derive these weights in closed form and illustrate their use with a simple numerical example. We discuss how the conditions required for the identification of internally valid causal effects are translated to apply to the identification of externally valid causal effects. Estimating effects in target populations is an important goal, especially for policy or clinical decisions. Researchers and policy-makers should therefore consider use of statistical techniques such as inverse odds of sampling weights, which under careful assumptions can transport effect estimates from study samples to target populations

When to Censor?

Loss to follow-up is an endemic feature of time-to-event analyses that precludes observation of the event of interest. To our knowledge, in typical cohort studies with encounters occurring at regular or irregular intervals, there is no consensus on how to handle person-time between participants’ last study encounter and the point at which they meet a definition of loss to follow-up. We demonstrate, using simulation and an example, that when the event of interest is captured outside of a study encounter (e.g., in a registry), person-time should be censored when the study-defined criterion for loss to follow-up is met (e.g., 1 year after last encounter), rather than at the last study encounter. Conversely, when the event of interest must be measured within the context of a study encounter (e.g., a biomarker value), person-time should be censored at the last study encounter. An inappropriate censoring scheme has the potential to result in substantial bias that may not be easily corrected

Target Validity and the Hierarchy of Study Designs

In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to problems of external validity, specifically to methodological approaches for both quantitative generalizability and transportability of study results. However, most approaches to these issues have considered external validity separately from internal validity. Here we argue that considering either internal or external validity in isolation may be problematic. Further, we argue that a joint measure of the validity of an effect estimate with respect to a specific population of interest may be more useful: We call this proposed measure target validity. In this work, we introduce and formally define target bias as the total difference between the true causal effect in the target population and the estimated causal effect in the study sample, and target validity as target bias = 0. We illustrate this measure with a series of examples and show how this measure may help us to think more clearly about comparisons between experimental and nonexperimental research results. Specifically, we show that even perfect internal validity does not ensure that a causal effect will be unbiased in a specific target population

Generalizing Study Results: A Potential Outcomes Perspective

Great care is taken in epidemiologic studies to ensure the internal validity of causal effect estimates; however, external validity has received considerably less attention. When the study sample is not a random sample of the target population, the sample average treatment effect, even if internally valid, cannot usually be expected to equal the average treatment effect in the target population. The utility of an effect estimate for planning purposes and decision making will depend on the degree of departure from the true causal effect in the target population due to problems with both internal and external validity. Herein, we review concepts from recent literature on generalizability, one facet of external validity, using the potential outcomes framework. Identification conditions sufficient for external validity closely parallel identification conditions for internal validity, namely conditional exchangeability; positivity; the same distributions of the versions of treatment; no interference; and no measurement error. We also require correct model specification. Under these conditions, we discuss how a version of direct standardization (the g-formula, adjustment formula, or transport formula) or inverse probability weighting can be used to generalize a causal effect from a study sample to a well-defined target population, and demonstrate their application in an illustrative example

Association of History of Injection Drug Use with External Cause-Related Mortality Among Persons Linked to HIV Care in an Urban Clinic, 2001–2015

High mortality rates among persons with HIV with a history of injection drug use (PWID) are thought to be driven in part by higher rates of external cause-related mortality. We followed 4796 persons aged 18–70 engaged in continuity HIV care from 2001 to 2015 until death or administrative censoring. We compared cause-specific (csHR) and subdistribution hazards (sdHR) of death due to external causes among PWID and persons who acquired their HIV infection through other routes (non-IDU). We standardized estimates on age, sex, race, and HIV-related health status. The standardized csHR for external cause-related death was 3.57 (95% CI 2.39, 5.33), and the sdHR was 3.14 (95% CI 2.16, 4.55). The majority of external cause-related deaths were overdose-related and standardized sdHR was 4.02 (95% CI 2.40, 6.72). Absolute rate of suicide was low but the csHR for PWID compared to non-IDU was most elevated for suicide (6.50, 95% CI 1.51, 28.03). HIV-infected PWID are at a disproportionately increased risk of death due to external causes, particularly overdose and suicide