No Arabic abstract
Existing strategies for determining the optimal treatment or monitoring strategy typically assume unlimited access to resources. However, when a health system has resource constraints, such as limited funds, access to medication, or monitoring capabilities, medical decisions must balance impacts on both individual and population health outcomes. That is, decisions should account for competition between individuals in resource usage. One simple solution is to estimate the (counterfactual) resource usage under the possible interventions and choose the optimal strategy for which resource usage is within acceptable limits. We propose a method to identify the optimal dynamic intervention strategy that leads to the best expected health outcome accounting for a health systems resource constraints. We then apply this method to determine the optimal dynamic monitoring strategy for people living with HIV when resource limits on monitoring exist using observational data from the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration.
This paper discusses the problem of estimation and inference on the effects of time-varying treatment. We propose a method for inference on the effects treatment histories, introducing a dynamic covariate balancing method combined with penalized regression. Our approach allows for (i) treatments to be assigned based on arbitrary past information, with the propensity score being unknown; (ii) outcomes and time-varying covariates to depend on treatment trajectories; (iii) high-dimensional covariates; (iv) heterogeneity of treatment effects. We study the asymptotic properties of the estimator, and we derive the parametric convergence rate of the proposed procedure. Simulations and an empirical application illustrate the advantage of the method over state-of-the-art competitors.
Following the emergence of a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and its spread outside of China, Europe has experienced large epidemics. In response, many European countries have implemented unprecedented non-pharmaceutical interventions including case isolation, the closure of schools and universities, banning of mass gatherings and/or public events, and most recently, wide-scale social distancing including local and national lockdowns. In this technical update, we extend a semi-mechanistic Bayesian hierarchical model that infers the impact of these interventions and estimates the number of infections over time. Our methods assume that changes in the reproductive number - a measure of transmission - are an immediate response to these interventions being implemented rather than broader gradual changes in behaviour. Our model estimates these changes by calculating backwards from temporal data on observed to estimate the number of infections and rate of transmission that occurred several weeks prior, allowing for a probabilistic time lag between infection and death. In this update we extend our original model [Flaxman, Mishra, Gandy et al 2020, Report #13, Imperial College London] to include (a) population saturation effects, (b) prior uncertainty on the infection fatality ratio, (c) a more balanced prior on intervention effects and (d) partial pooling of the lockdown intervention covariate. We also (e) included another 3 countries (Greece, the Netherlands and Portugal). The model code is available at https://github.com/ImperialCollegeLondon/covid19model/ We are now reporting the results of our updated model online at https://mrc-ide.github.io/covid19estimates/ We estimated parameters jointly for all M=14 countries in a single hierarchical model. Inference is performed in the probabilistic programming language Stan using an adaptive Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) sampler.
In clinical practice, physicians make a series of treatment decisions over the course of a patients disease based on his/her baseline and evolving characteristics. A dynamic treatment regime is a set of sequential decision rules that operationalizes this process. Each rule corresponds to a decision point and dictates the next treatment action based on the accrued information. Using existing data, a key goal is estimating the optimal regime, that, if followed by the patient population, would yield the most favorable outcome on average. Q- and A-learning are two main approaches for this purpose. We provide a detailed account of these methods, study their performance, and illustrate them using data from a depression study.
The field of precision medicine aims to tailor treatment based on patient-specific factors in a reproducible way. To this end, estimating an optimal individualized treatment regime (ITR) that recommends treatment decisions based on patient characteristics to maximize the mean of a pre-specified outcome is of particular interest. Several methods have been proposed for estimating an optimal ITR from clinical trial data in the parallel group setting where each subject is randomized to a single intervention. However, little work has been done in the area of estimating the optimal ITR from crossover study designs. Such designs naturally lend themselves to precision medicine, because they allow for observing the response to multiple treatments for each patient. In this paper, we introduce a method for estimating the optimal ITR using data from a 2x2 crossover study with or without carryover effects. The proposed method is similar to policy search methods such as outcome weighted learning; however, we take advantage of the crossover design by using the difference in responses under each treatment as the observed reward. We establish Fisher and global consistency, present numerical experiments, and analyze data from a feeding trial to demonstrate the improved performance of the proposed method compared to standard methods for a parallel study design.
Estimating causal effects for survival outcomes in the high-dimensional setting is an extremely important topic for many biomedical applications as well as areas of social sciences. We propose a new orthogonal score method for treatment effect estimation and inference that results in asymptotically valid confidence intervals assuming only good estimation properties of the hazard outcome model and the conditional probability of treatment. This guarantee allows us to provide valid inference for the conditional treatment effect under the high-dimensional additive hazards model under considerably more generality than existing approaches. In addition, we develop a new Hazards Difference (HDi), estimator. We showcase that our approach has double-robustness properties in high dimensions: with cross-fitting, the HDi estimate is consistent under a wide variety of treatment assignment models; the HDi estimate is also consistent when the hazards model is misspecified and instead the true data generating mechanism follows a partially linear additive hazards model. We further develop a novel sparsity doubly robust result, where either the outcome or the treatment model can be a fully dense high-dimensional model. We apply our methods to study the treatment effect of radical prostatectomy versus conservative management for prostate cancer patients using the SEER-Medicare Linked Data.