Search

There is a long-standing debate in the statistical, epidemiological, and econometric fields as to whether nonparametric estimation that uses machine learning in model fitting confers any meaningful advantage over simpler, parametric approaches in finite sample estimation of causal effects. We address the question: when estimating the effect of a treatment on an outcome, how much does the choice of nonparametric vs parametric estimation matter? Instead of answering this question with simulations that reflect a few chosen data scenarios, we propose a novel approach to compare estimators across a large number of data-generating mechanisms drawn from nonparametric models with semi-informative priors. We apply this proposed approach and compare the performance of two nonparametric estimators (Bayesian adaptive regression tree and a targeted minimum loss-based estimator) to two parametric estimators (a logistic regression-based plug-in estimator and a propensity score estimator) in terms of estimating the average treatment effect across thousands of data-generating mechanisms. We summarize performance in terms of bias, confidence interval coverage, and mean squared error. We find that the two nonparametric estimators can substantially reduce bias as compared to the two parametric estimators in large-sample settings characterized by interactions and nonlinearities while compromising very little in terms of performance even in simple, small-sample settings.

Mediation analysis is appealing for its ability to improve understanding of the mechanistic drivers of causal effects, but real-world data complexities challenge its successful implementation, including (i) the existence of post-exposure variables that also affect mediators and outcomes (thus, confounding the mediator-outcome relationship), that may also be (ii) multivariate, and (iii) the existence of multivariate mediators. All three challenges are present in the mediation analysis we consider here, where our goal is to estimate the indirect effects of receiving a Section 8 housing voucher as a young child on the risk of developing a psychiatric mood disorder in adolescence that operate through mediators related to neighborhood poverty, the school environment, and instability of the neighborhood and school environments, considered together and separately. Interventional direct and indirect effects (IDE/IIE) accommodate post-exposure variables that confound the mediator–outcome relationship, but currently, no readily implementable nonparametric estimator for IDE/IIE exists that allows for both multivariate mediators and multivariate post-exposure intermediate confounders. The absence of such an IDE/IIE estimator that can easily accommodate both multivariate mediators and post-exposure confounders represents a significant limitation for real-world analyses, because when considering each mediator subgroup separately, the remaining mediator subgroups (or a subset of them) become post-exposure intermediate confounders. We address this gap by extending a recently developed nonparametric estimator for the IDE/IIE to allow for easy incorporation of multivariate mediators and multivariate post-exposure confounders simultaneously. We apply the proposed estimation approach to our analysis, including walking through a strategy to account for other, possibly co-occurring intermediate variables when considering each mediator subgroup separately. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This tutorial discusses a methodology for causal inference using longitudinal modified treatment policies. This method facilitates the mathematical formalization, identification, and estimation of many novel parameters and mathematically generalizes many commonly used parameters, such as the average treatment effect. Longitudinal modified treatment policies apply to a wide variety of exposures, including binary, multivariate, and continuous, and can accommodate time-varying treatments and confounders, competing risks, loss to follow-up, as well as survival, binary, or continuous outcomes. Longitudinal modified treatment policies can be seen as an extension of static and dynamic interventions to involve the natural value of treatment and, like dynamic interventions, can be used to define alternative estimands with a positivity assumption that is more likely to be satisfied than estimands corresponding to static interventions. This tutorial aims to illustrate several practical uses of the longitudinal modified treatment policy methodology, including describing different estimation strategies and their corresponding advantages and disadvantages. We provide numerous examples of types of research questions that can be answered using longitudinal modified treatment policies. We go into more depth with one of these examples, specifically, estimating the effect of delaying intubation on critically ill COVID-19 patients' mortality. We demonstrate the use of the open-source R package lmtp to estimate the effects, and we provide code on https://github.com/kathoffman/lmtp-tutorial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic pain has been extensively explored as a risk factor for opioid misuse, resulting in increased focus on opioid prescribing practices for individuals with such conditions. Physical disability sometimes co-occurs with chronic pain but may also represent an independent risk factor for opioid misuse. However, previous research has not disentangled whether disability contributes to risk independent of chronic pain. Methods: Here, we estimate the independent and joint adjusted associations between having a physical disability and co-occurring chronic pain condition at time of Medicaid enrollment on subsequent 18-month risk of incident opioid use disorder (OUD) and non-fatal, unintentional opioid overdose among non-elderly, adult Medicaid beneficiaries (2016–2019). Results: We find robust evidence that having a physical disability approximately doubles the risk of incident OUD or opioid overdose, and physical disability co-occurring with chronic pain increases the risks approximately sixfold as compared to having neither chronic pain nor disability. In absolute numbers, those with neither a physical disability nor chronic pain condition have a 1.8% adjusted risk of incident OUD over 18 months of follow-up, those with physical disability alone have an 2.9% incident risk, those with chronic pain alone have a 3.6% incident risk, and those with co-occurring physical disability and chronic pain have a 11.1% incident risk. Conclusions: These findings suggest that those with a physical disability should receive increased attention from the medical and healthcare communities to reduce their risk of opioid misuse and attendant negative outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) tend to get assigned to one of 3 medications based on the treatment program to which the patient presents (e.g. opioid treatment programs tend to treat patients with methadone, while office-based practices tend to prescribe buprenorphine). It is possible that optimally matching patients with treatment type would reduce the risk of return to regular opioid use (RROU). We analyzed data from 3 comparative effectiveness trials from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network (CTN0027, 2006–2010; CTN0030, 2006–2009; and CTN0051 2014–2017), in which patients with OUD (n  = 1,459) were assigned to treatment with either injection extended-release naltrexone (XR-NTX), sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX), or oral methadone. We learned an individualized rule by which to assign medication type such that risk of RROU during 12 weeks of treatment would be minimized, and then estimated the amount by which RROU risk could be reduced if the rule were applied. Applying our estimated treatment rule would reduce risk of RROU compared with treating everyone with methadone (relative risk (RR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60, 0.97) or treating everyone with XR-NTX (RR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.96). Applying the estimated treatment rule would have resulted in a similar risk of RROU to that of with treating everyone with BUP-NX (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.73, 1.11). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: People with chronic pain are at increased risk of opioid misuse. Less is known about the unique risk conferred by each pain management treatment, as treatments are typically implemented together, confounding their independent effects. This study estimated the extent to which pain management treatments were associated with risk of opioid use disorder (OUD) for those with chronic pain, controlling for baseline demographic and clinical confounding variables and holding other pain management treatments at their observed levels., Methods: Data were analyzed in 2024 from 2 chronic pain subgroups within a cohort of non-pregnant Medicaid patients aged 35-64 years, 2016-2019, from 25 states: those with (1) chronic pain and physical disability (CPPD) (N=6,133) or (2) chronic pain without disability (CP) (N=67,438). Nine pain management treatments were considered: prescription opioid (1) dose and (2) duration; (3) number of opioid prescribers; opioid co-prescription with (4) benzo- diazepines, (5) muscle relaxants, and (6) gabapentinoids; (7) nonopioid pain prescription, (8) physical therapy, and (9) other pain treatment modality. The outcome was OUD risk., Results: Having opioids co-prescribed with gabapentin or benzodiazepine was statistically significantly associated with a 37-45% increased OUD risk for the CP subgroup. Opioid dose and duration also were significantly associated with increased OUD risk in this subgroup. Physical therapy was significantly associated with an 18% decreased risk of OUD in the CP subgroup., Discussion: Coprescription of opioids with either gabapentin or benzodiazepines may substantially increase OUD risk. More positively, physical therapy may be a relatively accessible and safe pain management strategy., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Studies often report estimates of the average treatment effect (ATE). While the ATE summarizes the effect of a treatment on average, it does not provide any information about the effect of treatment within any individual. A treatment strategy that uses an individual's information to tailor treatment to maximize benefit is known as an optimal dynamic treatment rule (ODTR). Treatment, however, is typically not limited to a single point in time; consequently, learning an optimal rule for a time-varying treatment may involve not just learning the extent to which the comparative treatments' benefits vary across the characteristics of individuals, but also learning the extent to which the comparative treatments' benefits vary as relevant circumstances evolve within an individual. The goal of this paper is to provide a tutorial for estimating ODTR from longitudinal observational and clinical trial data for applied researchers. We describe an approach that uses a doubly-robust unbiased transformation of the conditional average treatment effect. We then learn a time-varying ODTR for when to increase buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX) dose to minimize return-to-regular-opioid-use among patients with opioid use disorder. Our analysis highlights the utility of ODTRs in the context of sequential decision making: the learned ODTR outperforms a clinically defined strategy., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)