Estimating causal effects for binary outcomes using per-decision inverse probability weighting.

Micro-randomized trials are commonly conducted for optimizing mobile health interventions such as push notifications for behavior change. In analyzing such trials, causal excursion effects are often of primary interest, and their estimation typically involves inverse probability weighting (IPW). However, in a micro-randomized trial, additional treatments can often occur during the time window over which an outcome is defined, and this can greatly inflate the variance of the causal effect estimator because IPW would involve a product of numerous weights. To reduce variance and improve estimation efficiency, we propose two new estimators using a modified version of IPW, which we call "per-decision IPW." The second estimator further improves efficiency using the projection idea from the semiparametric efficiency theory. These estimators are applicable when the outcome is binary and can be expressed as the maximum of a series of sub-outcomes defined over sub-intervals of time. We establish the estimators' consistency and asymptotic normality. Through simulation studies and real data applications, we demonstrate substantial efficiency improvement of the proposed estimator over existing estimators. The new estimators can be used to improve the precision of primary and secondary analyses for micro-randomized trials with binary outcomes.

Cardiorenal effects of Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and Angiotensin receptor blockers in people underrepresented in trials: analysis of routinely collected data with emulation of a reference trial (ONTARGET).

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), compared in the ONTARGET trial, each prevent CVD. However, trial results may not be generalisable and their effectiveness in underrepresented groups is unclear. Using trial emulation methods within routine-care data to validate findings, we explored generalisability of ONTARGET results. For people prescribed an ACEi/ARB in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD from 1/1/2001-31/7/2019, we applied trial criteria and propensity-score methods to create an ONTARGET trial-eligible cohort. Comparing ARB to ACEi, we estimated hazard ratios for the primary composite trial outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalisation for heart failure), and secondary outcomes. As the pre-specified criteria were met confirming trial emulation, we then explored treatment heterogeneity among three trial-underrepresented subgroups: females, those aged ≥75 years and those with chronic kidney disease (CKD). In the trial-eligible population (n=137,155), results for the primary outcome demonstrated similar effects of ARB and ACEi, (HR 0.97 [95% CI: 0.93, 1.01]), meeting the pre-specified validation criteria. When extending this outcome to trial-underrepresented groups, similar treatment effects were observed by sex, age and CKD. This suggests that ONTARGET trial findings are generalisable to trial-underrepresented subgroups.

Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines as First Booster Doses in England: An Observational Study in OpenSAFELY-TPP.

BACKGROUND: The UK delivered its first "booster" COVID-19 vaccine doses in September 2021, initially to individuals at high risk of severe disease, then to all adults. The BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was used initially, then also Moderna mRNA-1273. METHODS: With the approval of the National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data to estimate the effectiveness of boosting with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 compared with no boosting in eligible adults who had received two primary course vaccine doses. We matched each booster recipient with an unboosted control on factors relating to booster priority status and prior COVID-19 immunization. We adjusted for additional factors in Cox models, estimating hazard ratios up to 182 days (6 months) following booster dose. We estimated hazard ratios overall and within the following periods: 1-14, 15-42, 43-69, 70-97, 98-126, 127-152, and 155-182 days. Outcomes included a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalization, COVID-19 death, non-COVID-19 death, and fracture. RESULTS: We matched 8,198,643 booster recipients with unboosted controls. Adjusted hazard ratios over 6-month follow-up were: positive SARS-CoV-2 test 0.75 (0.74, 0.75); COVID-19 hospitalization 0.30 (0.29, 0.31); COVID-19 death 0.11 (0.10, 0.14); non-COVID-19 death 0.22 (0.21, 0.23); and fracture 0.77 (0.75, 0.78). Estimated effectiveness of booster vaccines against severe COVID-19-related outcomes peaked during the first 3 months following the booster dose. By 6 months, the cumulative incidence of positive SARS-CoV-2 test was higher in boosted than unboosted individuals. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that COVID-19 booster vaccination, compared with no booster vaccination, provided substantial protection against COVID-19 hospitalization and COVID-19 death but only limited protection against positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Lower rates of fracture in boosted than unboosted individuals may suggest unmeasured confounding. Observational studies should report estimated vaccine effectiveness against nontarget and negative control outcomes.

Assessing efficacy in non-inferiority trials with non-adherence to interventions: Are intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses fit for purpose?

BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority trials comparing different active drugs are often subject to treatment non-adherence. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses have been advocated in such studies but are not guaranteed to be unbiased in the presence of differential non-adherence. METHODS: The REMoxTB trial evaluated two 4-month experimental regimens compared with a 6-month control regimen for newly diagnosed drug-susceptible TB. The primary endpoint was a composite unfavorable outcome of treatment failure or recurrence within 18 months post-randomization. We conducted a simulation study based on REMoxTB to assess the performance of statistical methods for handling non-adherence in non-inferiority trials, including: ITT and PP analyses, adjustment for observed adherence, multiple imputation (MI) of outcomes, inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW), and a doubly-robust (DR) estimator. RESULTS: When non-adherence differed between trial arms, ITT, and PP analyses often resulted in non-trivial bias in the estimated treatment effect, which consequently under- or over-inflated the type I error rate. Adjustment for observed adherence led to similar issues, whereas the MI, IPTW and DR approaches were able to correct bias under most non-adherence scenarios; they could not always eliminate bias entirely in the presence of unobserved confounding. The IPTW and DR methods were generally unbiased and maintained desired type I error rates and statistical power. CONCLUSIONS: When non-adherence differs between trial arms, ITT and PP analyses can produce biased estimates of efficacy, potentially leading to the acceptance of inferior treatments or efficacious regimens being missed. IPTW and the DR estimator are relatively straightforward methods to supplement ITT and PP approaches.

On variance estimation of the inverse probability-of-treatment weighting estimator: A tutorial for different types of propensity score weights.

Propensity score methods, such as inverse probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW), have been increasingly used for covariate balancing in both observational studies and randomized trials, allowing the control of both systematic and chance imbalances. Approaches using IPTW are based on two steps: (i) estimation of the individual propensity scores (PS), and (ii) estimation of the treatment effect by applying PS weights. Thus, a variance estimator that accounts for both steps is crucial for correct inference. Using a variance estimator which ignores the first step leads to overestimated variance when the estimand is the average treatment effect (ATE), and to under or overestimated estimates when targeting the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT). In this article, we emphasize the importance of using an IPTW variance estimator that correctly considers the uncertainty in PS estimation. We present a comprehensive tutorial to obtain unbiased variance estimates, by proposing and applying a unifying formula for different types of PS weights (ATE, ATT, matching and overlap weights). This can be derived either via the linearization approach or M-estimation. Extensive R code is provided along with the corresponding large-sample theory. We perform simulation studies to illustrate the behavior of the estimators under different treatment and outcome prevalences and demonstrate appropriate behavior of the analytical variance estimator. We also use a reproducible analysis of observational lung cancer data as an illustrative example, estimating the effect of receiving a PET-CT scan on the receipt of surgery.

OpenSAFELY: A platform for analysing electronic health records designed for reproducible research.

Electronic health records (EHRs) and other administrative health data are increasingly used in research to generate evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and utilisation of medical products and services, and to inform public health guidance and policy. Reproducibility is a fundamental step for research credibility and promotes trust in evidence generated from EHRs. At present, ensuring research using EHRs is reproducible can be challenging for researchers. Research software platforms can provide technical solutions to enhance the reproducibility of research conducted using EHRs. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed the secure, transparent, analytic open-source software platform OpenSAFELY designed with reproducible research in mind. OpenSAFELY mitigates common barriers to reproducible research by: standardising key workflows around data preparation; removing barriers to code-sharing in secure analysis environments; enforcing public sharing of programming code and codelists; ensuring the same computational environment is used everywhere; integrating new and existing tools that encourage and enable the use of reproducible working practices; and providing an audit trail for all code that is run against the real data to increase transparency. This paper describes OpenSAFELY's reproducibility-by-design approach in detail.

Spiritual coping within medical professions: A psychometric analysis of the Numinous Motivations Inventory short form.

AIM: To examine the psychometric properties of a short form version of the Numinous Motivation Inventory (NMI) for use with healthcare providers in measuring their existential engagement with life and to assess its relationship with spiritual coping and emotional dysphoria. DESIGN: Correlational and psychometric study. METHOD: Data were collected from June to December 2022. Participants included 102 physicians, recruited from across the United States. Qualtrics was utilized to collect data, and they were evaluated with the NMI short form, Spiritual Coping Questionnaire and Depression, Anxiety, and Stress scale (DASS-21). RESULTS: Obtained fit statistics from structural equation modelling analysis indicated close fit of the NMI short form with the original model. Multiple regression analyses demonstrated the value of the NMI as a predictor of negative affect independent of spiritual coping. The NMI did not interact with Spiritual Coping, which was independent of negative affect. CONCLUSIONS: The Numinous represents an important aspect of physicians' coping. The constructs can be utilized in training and clinical settings as a valuable and easy-to-use metric for promoting and assessing wellness. The implications of these findings and the value of the NMI were discussed. IMPACT: An understanding of existential drivers can equip one to cope with the stressors of healthcare. The NMI short form has the capability to explore an individual's existential drivers through the understanding of three domains. REPORTING METHOD: Adhered to proper EQUATOR guidelines (GRRAS). PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

NHS national data opt-outs: trends and potential consequences for health data research.

BACKGROUND: The English NHS data opt-out allows people to prevent use of their health data for purposes other than direct care. In 2021, the number of opt-outs increased in response to government-led proposals to create a centralised pseudonymised primary care record database. AIM: To describe the potential impact of NHS national data opt-outs in 2021 on health data research. DESIGN & SETTING: We conducted a descriptive analysis of opt-outs using publicly available data and the potential consequences on research are discussed. METHOD: Trends in opt-outs in England were described by age, sex, and region. Using a hypothetical study, we explored statistical and epidemiological implications of opt-outs. RESULTS: During the lead up to a key government-led deadline for registering opt-outs (from 31 May 2021-30 June 2021), 1 339 862 national data opt-outs were recorded; increasing the percentage of opt-outs in England from 2.77% to 4.97% of the population. Among females, percentage opt-outs increased by 83% (from 3.02% to 5.53%) compared with 76% in males (from 2.51% to 4.41%). Across age groups, the highest relative increase was among people aged 40-49 years, which rose from 2.89% to 6.04%. Considerable geographical variation was not clearly related to deprivation. Key research consequences of opt-outs include reductions in sample size and unpredictable distortion of observed measures of the frequency of health events or associations between these events. CONCLUSION: Opt-out rates varied by age, sex, and place. The impact of this and variation by other characteristics on research is not quantifiable. Potential effects of opt-outs on research and consequences for health policies based on this research must be considered when creating future opt-out solutions.

Correction: The importance of investing in data, models, experiments, team science, and public trust to help policymakers prepare for the next pandemic.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002601.].