How to use marginal structural models in randomized trials to estimate the natural direct and indirect effects of therapies mediated by causal intermediates

Clinical Trials

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 277-287

  Oba, Koji ^a   Sato, Tosiya ^b   Ogihara, Toshio ^c   Saruta, Takao ^d   Nakao, Kazuwa ^e  

^a HOKKAIDO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^b KYOTO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Japan)

^c OSAKA UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^d School of Medicine Graduate School of Medicine   (Japan)

^e KYOTO UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMLODIPINE; ANGIOTENSIN RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST; CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKING AGENT; CANDESARTAN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; DIASTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MODEL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; THERAPY EFFECT;

AGED; ANGIOTENSIN RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS; CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKERS; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; JAPAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 79960261022     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774511402526     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. ICH harmonized tripartite guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials. International conference on harmonization of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use, 1998.
2. Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med. 1992 ; 11: 167-78
3. Robins JM. The control of confounding by intermediate variables. Stat Med. 1989 ; 8: 679-701
4. Rosenbaum PR. The consequences of adjustment for a concomitant variable that has been affected by the treatment. J R Statist Soc A. 1984 ; 147: 656-66
5. Kaufman JS, MacLehose RF, Kaufman S. A further critique of the analytic strategy of adjusting for covariates to identify biologic mediation. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2004 ; 1: 4-4
6. Robins JM, Greenland S. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 1992 ; 3: 143-55
7. Pearl J. Direct and indirect effects. In: Proceedings of Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, 2000.
8. Hafeman DM, Schwartz S. Opening the black box: a motivation for the assessment of mediation. Int J Epidemiol. 2009 ; 38: 838-45
9. Petersen M, Sinsi SE, van der Laan MJ. Estimation of direct effect. Epidemiology. 2006 ; 17: 276-84
10. VanderWeele TJ. Marginal structural models for the estimation of direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 2009 ; 20: 18-26
11. Rosenblum M, Jewell N, van der Laan M, et al. Analysing direct effects in randomized trials with secondary interventions: an application to human immunodeficiency virus prevention trials. J R Statist Soc A. 2009 ; 172: 443-65
12. Goetgeluk S, Vansteelandt S, Goetghebeur E. Estimation of controlled direct effects. J R Statist Soc B. 2008 ; 70: 1049-66
13. van der Laan MJ, Petersen ML. Direct effect models. Int J Biostat. 2008 ; 4: Article 23 - Article 23
14. Ogihara T, Nakao K, Fukui T, et al. Effects of candesartan compared with amlodipine in hypertensive patients with high cardiovascular risks: candesartan antihypertensive survival evaluation in Japan trial. Hypertension. 2008 ; 51: 393-98 (Pubitemid 351159955)
15. Kaufman S, Kaufman JS, MacLehose RF, et al. Improved estimation of controlled direct effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding of intermediate variables. Stat Med. 2005 ; 24: 1683-702 (Pubitemid 40754088)
16. Holland P. Statistics and causal inference (with discussion and rejoinder). J Am Statist Assoc. 1986 ; 81: 945-70
17. VanderWeele TJ. Concerning the consistency assumption in causal inference. Epidemiology. 2009 ; 20: 880-83
18. Robins JM Highly Structured Stochastic Systems. Green P Hjort NL Richardson S, ed. New York: Oxford University Press ; 2003: 70-81.
19. Robins JM, Hernan MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2000 ; 11: 550-60 (Pubitemid 30660034)
20. Sato T, Matsuyama Y. Marginal structural models as a tool for standardization. Epidemiology. 2003 ; 14: 680-86 (Pubitemid 40417015)
21. Fukui T, Rahman M, Hayashi K, et al. Candesartan antihypertensive survival evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) trial of cardiovascular events in high-risk hypertensive patients: rationale, design, and methods. Hypertens Res. 2003 ; 26: 979-90 (Pubitemid 38128771)
22. Guidelines for the management of hypertension for general practitioners. Hypertens Res. 2001 ; 24: 613-34
23. Hernan MA, Brumback B, Robins JM. Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men. Epidemiology. 2000 ; 11: 561-70 (Pubitemid 30660035)
24. Hernan MA, Brumback BA, Robins JM. Estimating the causal effect of zidovudine on CD4 count with a marginal structural model for repeated measures. Stat Med. 2002 ; 21: 1689-709 (Pubitemid 34678901)
25. Westfall PH, Young SS Resampling-based Multiple Testing. New York: John Wiley and Sons ; 1993 :
26. Blood pressure-dependent and independent effects of agents that inhibit the renin-angiotensin system. J Hypertens. 2007 ; 25: 951-58
27. Taylor JMG, Wang Y, Thiebaut R. Counterfactual links to the proportion of treatment effect explained by a surrogate marker. Biometrics. 2005 ; 61: 1102-11 (Pubitemid 43906918)
28. Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints. New York: Springer ; 2005 :
29. VanderWeele TJ. Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis for direct and indirect effect. Epidemiology. 2010 ; 21: 540-51
30. Greenland S. Basic methods for sensitivity analysis of biases. Int J Epidemiol. 1996 ; 25: 1107-16 (Pubitemid 27013514)
31. Brumback BA, Hernan MA, Haneuse S, Robins JM. Sensitivity analyses for unmeasured confounding assuming a marginal structural model for repeated measures. Stat Med. 2004 ; 23: 749-67 (Pubitemid 38279511)
32. Klungsøyr O, Sexton J, Sandanger I, Nygard JF. Sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding in a marginal structural Cox proportional hazards model. Lifetime Data Anal. 2009 ; 15: 278-94
33. Kaufman S, Kaufman JS, MacLehose RF, et al. Improved estimation of controlled direct effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding of intermediate variables. Stat Med. 2005 ; 24: 1683-702 (Pubitemid 40754088)
34. Cai Z, Kuroki M, Pearl J, Tian J. Bounds on direct effects in the presence of confounded intermediate variables. Biometrics. 2008 ; 64: 695-701
35. Sjolander A. Bounds on natural direct effects in the presence of confounded intermediate variables. Stat Med. 2009 ; 28: 558-71