Matching Methods for Obtaining Survival Functions to Estimate the Effect of a Time-Dependent Treatment
- 386 Downloads
In observational studies of survival time featuring a binary time-dependent treatment, the hazard ratio (an instantaneous measure) is often used to represent the treatment effect. However, investigators are often more interested in the difference in survival functions. We propose semiparametric methods to estimate the causal effect of treatment among the treated with respect to survival probability. The objective is to compare post-treatment survival with the survival function that would have been observed in the absence of treatment. For each patient, we compute a prognostic score (based on the pre-treatment death hazard) and a propensity score (based on the treatment hazard). Each treated patient is then matched with an alive, uncensored and not-yet-treated patient with similar prognostic and/or propensity scores. The experience of each treated and matched patient is weighted using a variant of Inverse Probability of Censoring Weighting to account for the impact of censoring. We propose estimators of the treatment-specific survival functions (and their difference), computed through weighted Nelson–Aalen estimators. Closed-form variance estimators are proposed which take into consideration the potential replication of subjects across matched sets. The proposed methods are evaluated through simulation, then applied to estimate the effect of kidney transplantation on survival among end-stage renal disease patients using data from a national organ failure registry.
KeywordsCausal inference Matching Observational study Propensity score Survival function Time-dependent treatment
This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grant 5R01-DK070869. The authors thank the Canadian Institute for Health Information for access to the Canadian Organ Replacement Register database.
The authors would like to thank Jeffrey Smith and Brenda Gillespie for their valuable input on the work.
- 5.Bryson A, Dorsett R, Purdon S (2002) The use of propensity score matching in the evaluation of active labour market policies. Department for Work and Pensions working paper no 4. Department for Work and Pensions Google Scholar
- 17.Heckman J, Lalonde R, Smith J (1999) The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. In: Handbook of labor economics. Elsevier, Amsterdam Google Scholar
- 26.Little RJA, Vartivarian S (2005) Does weighting for nonresponse increase the variance of survey means? Surv Methodol 31:161–168 Google Scholar
- 29.Petersen ML, Deeks SG, Martin JN, van der Laan MJ (2007) History-adjusted marginal structural models for estimating time-varying effect modification. Am J Epidemiol 166:185–193 Google Scholar
- 36.Robins JM, Hernán MA (2008) Estimation of the causal effects of time-varying exposures. In: Fitzmaurice G, Davidian M, Verbeke G, Molenberghs G (eds) Advances in longitudinal data analysis. Chapman & Hall, New York Google Scholar
- 37.Robins JM, Rotnitzky A (1992) Recovery of information and adjustment for dependent censoring using surrogate markers. In: Jewell N, Dietz K, Farewell V (eds) AIDS epidemiology—methodological issues. Birkhauser Boston, Cambridge Google Scholar
- 43.Rubin DB (1980) Randomization analysis of experimental-data—the Fisher randomziation test: comment. J Am Stat Assoc 75:591–593 Google Scholar
- 50.van der Vaart AW (2000) Asymptotic statistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar