Using marginal structural models to adjust for treatment drop‐in when developing clinical prediction models

Abstract

Clinical prediction models (CPMs) can inform decision making about treatment initiation, which requires predicted risks assuming no treatment is given. However, this is challenging since CPMs are usually derived using data sets where patients received treatment, often initiated postbaseline as “treatment drop‐ins.” This study proposes the use of marginal structural models (MSMs) to adjust for treatment drop‐in. We illustrate the use of MSMs in the CPM framework through simulation studies that represent randomized controlled trials and real‐world observational data and the example of statin initiation for cardiovascular disease prevention. The simulations include a binary treatment and a covariate, each recorded at two timepoints and having a prognostic effect on a binary outcome. The bias in predicted risk was examined in a model ignoring treatment, a model fitted on treatment‐naïve patients (at baseline), a model including baseline treatment, and the MSM. In all simulation scenarios, all models except the MSM underestimated the risk of outcome given absence of treatment. These results were supported in the statin initiation example, which showed that ignoring statin initiation postbaseline resulted in models that significantly underestimated the risk of a cardiovascular disease event occurring within 10 years. Consequently, CPMs that do not acknowledge treatment drop‐in can lead to underallocation of treatment. In conclusion, when developing CPMs to predict treatment‐naïve risk, researchers should consider using MSMs to adjust for treatment drop‐in, and also seek to exploit the ability of MSMs to allow estimation of individual treatment effects.

The emerging landscape of health research based on biobanks linked to electronic health records: Existing resources, statistical challenges, and potential opportunities

“…Mendelian randomization analysis is then used to explore potential causal relationships . Marginal structural models can be used to address confounding by time‐dependent variables and has recently been applied to EHR in Sperrin et al Techniques for reducing and eliminating confounding often assume that the potential confounders are measured. When key confounders are not measured, sensitivity analyses and related statistical methods can be used to explore the impact of and to correct for potential unmeasured confounding …”

Use of Missing Indicators as Proxies for Unmeasured Variables: Simulation Study

“…While such bias is not a direct concern in predictive modelling, causal effects are known to be more stable and robust over time and geography [13], and also allow for counterfactual prediction, which is useful in many decision support contexts [14,15].…”

An assessment of the potential miscalibration of cardiovascular disease risk predictions caused by a secular trend in cardiovascular disease in England

“…MSMs were developed to calculate the causal effect of a time dependent exposure on an outcome in an observational setting, where the treatment and outcome are confounded by time varying covariates. (13,14) Sperrin et al (15) have shown how MSMs can be used to adjust for 'treatment drop in', the issue of patients starting treatment during follow up in a dataset being used for risk prediction. In the absence of unmeasured confounding, they allow for the estimation of , where A denotes the entire treatment course during follow up, as opposed to .…”