Can metformin prevent cancer relative to sulfonylureas? A target trial emulation accounting for competing risks and poor overlap via double/debiased machine learning estimators.

There is mounting interest in the possibility that metformin, indicated for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, has a range of additional beneficial effects. Randomized trials have shown that metformin prevents adverse cardiovascular events, and metformin use has also been associated with reduced cognitive decline and cancer incidence. In this paper, we dig more deeply into whether metformin prevents cancer by emulating target randomized trials comparing metformin to sulfonylureas as first line diabetes therapy using data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a U.K. primary care database (1987-2018). We included individuals with diabetes, no prior cancer diagnosis, no chronic kidney disease, and no prior diabetes therapy who initiated metformin (N=93353) or a sulfonylurea (N=13864). In our cohort, the estimated overlap weighted additive separable direct effect of metformin compared to sulfonylureas on cancer risk at 6 years was -1% (.95 CI=-2.2%, 0.1%), which is consistent with metformin providing no direct protection against cancer incidence or substantial protection. The analysis faced two methodological challenges-poor overlap, and pre-cancer death as a competing risk. To address these issues while minimizing nuisance model misspecification, we develop and apply double/debiased machine learning estimators of overlap weighted separable effects in addition to more traditional effect estimates.

Estimation of separable direct and indirect effects in a continuous-time illness-death model.

In this article we study the effect of a baseline exposure on a terminal time-to-event outcome either directly or mediated by the illness state of a continuous-time illness-death process with baseline covariates. We propose a definition of the corresponding direct and indirect effects using the concept of separable (interventionist) effects (Robins and Richardson in Causality and psychopathology: finding the determinants of disorders and their cures, Oxford University Press, 2011; Robins et al. in arXiv:2008.06019 , 2021; Stensrud et al. in J Am Stat Assoc 117:175-183, 2022). Our proposal generalizes Martinussen and Stensrud (Biometrics 79:127-139, 2023) who consider similar causal estimands for disentangling the causal treatment effects on the event of interest and competing events in the standard continuous-time competing risk model. Unlike natural direct and indirect effects (Robins and Greenland in Epidemiology 3:143-155, 1992; Pearl in Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, 2001) which are usually defined through manipulations of the mediator independently of the exposure (so-called cross-world interventions), separable direct and indirect effects are defined through interventions on different components of the exposure that exert their effects through distinct causal mechanisms. This approach allows us to define meaningful mediation targets even though the mediating event is truncated by the terminal event. We present the conditions for identifiability, which include some arguably restrictive structural assumptions on the treatment mechanism, and discuss when such assumptions are valid. The identifying functionals are used to construct plug-in estimators for the separable direct and indirect effects. We also present multiply robust and asymptotically efficient estimators based on the efficient influence functions. We verify the theoretical properties of the estimators in a simulation study, and we demonstrate the use of the estimators using data from a Danish registry study.

Causal inference with recurrent and competing events.

Many research questions concern treatment effects on outcomes that can recur several times in the same individual. For example, medical researchers are interested in treatment effects on hospitalizations in heart failure patients and sports injuries in athletes. Competing events, such as death, complicate causal inference in studies of recurrent events because once a competing event occurs, an individual cannot have more recurrent events. Several statistical estimands have been studied in recurrent event settings, with and without competing events. However, the causal interpretations of these estimands, and the conditions that are required to identify these estimands from observed data, have yet to be formalized. Here we use a formal framework for causal inference to formulate several causal estimands in recurrent event settings, with and without competing events. When competing events exist, we clarify when commonly used classical statistical estimands can be interpreted as causal quantities from the causal mediation literature, such as (controlled) direct effects and total effects. Furthermore, we show that recent results on interventionist mediation estimands allow us to define new causal estimands with recurrent and competing events that may be of particular clinical relevance in many subject matter settings. We use causal directed acyclic graphs and single world intervention graphs to illustrate how to reason about identification conditions for the various causal estimands based on subject matter knowledge. Furthermore, using results on counting processes, we show that our causal estimands and their identification conditions, which are articulated in discrete time, converge to classical continuous time counterparts in the limit of fine discretizations of time. We propose estimators and establish their consistency for the various identifying functionals. Finally, we use the proposed estimators to compute the effect of blood pressure lowering treatment on the recurrence of acute kidney injury using data from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.

Estimation of separable direct and indirect effects in continuous time.

Many research questions involve time-to-event outcomes that can be prevented from occurring due to competing events. In these settings, we must be careful about the causal interpretation of classical statistical estimands. In particular, estimands on the hazard scale, such as ratios of cause-specific or subdistribution hazards, are fundamentally hard to interpret causally. Estimands on the risk scale, such as contrasts of cumulative incidence functions, do have a clear causal interpretation, but they only capture the total effect of the treatment on the event of interest; that is, effects both through and outside of the competing event. To disentangle causal treatment effects on the event of interest and competing events, the separable direct and indirect effects were recently introduced. Here we provide new results on the estimation of direct and indirect separable effects in continuous time. In particular, we derive the nonparametric influence function in continuous time and use it to construct an estimator that has certain robustness properties. We also propose a simple estimator based on semiparametric models for the two cause-specific hazard functions. We describe the asymptotic properties of these estimators and present results from simulation studies, suggesting that the estimators behave satisfactorily in finite samples. Finally, we reanalyze the prostate cancer trial from Stensrud et al. (2020).

Estimating causal effects in the presence of competing events using regression standardisation with the Stata command standsurv.

BACKGROUND: When interested in a time-to-event outcome, competing events that prevent the occurrence of the event of interest may be present. In the presence of competing events, various estimands have been suggested for defining the causal effect of treatment on the event of interest. Depending on the estimand, the competing events are either accommodated or eliminated, resulting in causal effects with different interpretations. The former approach captures the total effect of treatment on the event of interest while the latter approach captures the direct effect of treatment on the event of interest that is not mediated by the competing event. Separable effects have also been defined for settings where the treatment can be partitioned into two components that affect the event of interest and the competing event through different causal pathways. METHODS: We outline various causal effects that may be of interest in the presence of competing events, including total, direct and separable effects, and describe how to obtain estimates using regression standardisation with the Stata command standsurv. Regression standardisation is applied by obtaining the average of individual estimates across all individuals in a study population after fitting a survival model. RESULTS: With standsurv several contrasts of interest can be calculated including differences, ratios and other user-defined functions. Confidence intervals can also be obtained using the delta method. Throughout we use an example analysing a publicly available dataset on prostate cancer to allow the reader to replicate the analysis and further explore the different effects of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Several causal effects can be defined in the presence of competing events and, under assumptions, estimates of those can be obtained using regression standardisation with the Stata command standsurv. The choice of which causal effect to define should be given careful consideration based on the research question and the audience to which the findings will be communicated.

A generalized theory of separable effects in competing event settings.

In competing event settings, a counterfactual contrast of cause-specific cumulative incidences quantifies the total causal effect of a treatment on the event of interest. However, effects of treatment on the competing event may indirectly contribute to this total effect, complicating its interpretation. We previously proposed the separable effects to define direct and indirect effects of the treatment on the event of interest. This definition was given in a simple setting, where the treatment was decomposed into two components acting along two separate causal pathways. Here we generalize the notion of separable effects, allowing for interpretation, identification and estimation in a wide variety of settings. We propose and discuss a definition of separable effects that is applicable to general time-varying structures, where the separable effects can still be meaningfully interpreted as effects of modified treatments, even when they cannot be regarded as direct and indirect effects. For these settings we derive weaker conditions for identification of separable effects in studies where decomposed, or otherwise modified, treatments are not yet available; in particular, these conditions allow for time-varying common causes of the event of interest, the competing events and loss to follow-up. We also propose semi-parametric weighted estimators that are straightforward to implement. We stress that unlike previous definitions of direct and indirect effects, the separable effects can be subject to empirical scrutiny in future studies.