Sensitivity Analysis for the Assessment of Causal Vaccine Effects on Viral Load in HIV Vaccine Trials

Vaccines with limited ability to prevent HIV infection may positively impact the HIV/AIDS pandemic by preventing secondary transmission and disease in vaccine recipients who become infected. To evaluate the impact of vaccination on secondary transmission and disease, efficacy trials assess vaccine effects on HIV viral load and other surrogate endpoints measured after infection. A standard test that compares the distribution of viral load between the infected subgroups of vaccine and placebo recipients does not assess a causal effect of vaccine, because the comparison groups are selected after randomization. To address this problem, we formulate clinically relevant causal estimands using the principal stratification framework developed by Frangakis and Rubin (2002), and propose a class of logistic selection bias models whose members identify the estimands. Given a selection model in the class, procedures are developed for testing and estimation of the causal effect of vaccination on viral load in the principal stratum of subjects who would be infected regardless of randomization assignment. We show how the procedures can be used for a sensitivity analysis that quantifies how the causal effect of vaccination varies with the presumed magnitude of selection bias.

Robust Inferences For Covariate Effects On Survival Time With Censored Linear Regression Models

Various inference procedures for linear regression models with censored failure times have been studied extensively. Recent developments on efficient algorithms to implement these procedures enhance the practical usage of such models in survival analysis. In this article, we present robust inferences for certain covariate effects on the failure time in the presence of "nuisance" confounders under a semiparametric, partial linear regression setting. Specifically, the estimation procedures for the regression coefficients of interest are derived from a working linear model and are valid even when the function of the confounders in the model is not correctly specified. The new proposals are illustrated with two examples and their validity for cases with practical sample sizes is demonstrated via a simulation study.

On Causal Mediation Analysis with a Survival Outcome

Suppose that having established a marginal total effect of a point exposure on a time-to-event outcome, an investigator wishes to decompose this effect into its direct and indirect pathways, also know as natural direct and indirect effects, mediated by a variable known to occur after the exposure and prior to the outcome. This paper proposes a theory of estimation of natural direct and indirect effects in two important semiparametric models for a failure time outcome. The underlying survival model for the marginal total effect and thus for the direct and indirect effects, can either be a marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model, or a marginal structural additive hazards model. The proposed theory delivers new estimators for mediation analysis in each of these models, with appealing robustness properties. Specifically, in order to guarantee ignorability with respect to the exposure and mediator variables, the approach, which is multiply robust, allows the investigator to use several flexible working models to adjust for confounding by a large number of pre-exposure variables. Multiple robustness is appealing because it only requires a subset of working models to be correct for consistency; furthermore, the analyst need not know which subset of working models is in fact correct to report valid inferences. Finally, a novel semiparametric sensitivity analysis technique is developed for each of these models, to assess the impact on inference, of a violation of the assumption of ignorability of the mediator.

RANDOM EFFECTS MODELS IN A META-ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF DIAGNOSTIC TESTS WITHIN A GOLD STANDARD IN THE PRESENCE OF MISSING DATA

In evaluating the accuracy of diagnosis tests, it is common to apply two imperfect tests jointly or sequentially to a study population. In a recent meta-analysis of the accuracy of microsatellite instability testing (MSI) and traditional mutation analysis (MUT) in predicting germline mutations of the mismatch repair (MMR) genes, a Bayesian approach (Chen, Watson, and Parmigiani 2005) was proposed to handle missing data resulting from partial testing and the lack of a gold standard. In this paper, we demonstrate an improved estimation of the sensitivities and specificities of MSI and MUT by using a nonlinear mixed model and a Bayesian hierarchical model, both of which account for the heterogeneity across studies through study-specific random effects. The methods can be used to estimate the accuracy of two imperfect diagnostic tests in other meta-analyses when the prevalence of disease, the sensitivities and/or the specificities of diagnostic tests are heterogeneous among studies. Furthermore, simulation studies have demonstrated the importance of carefully selecting appropriate random effects on the estimation of diagnostic accuracy measurements in this scenario.