-
Bayesian Safety Surveillance with Adaptive Bias Correction
Authors:
Fan Bu,
Martijn J. Schuemie,
Akihiko Nishimura,
Louisa H. Smith,
Kristin Kostka,
Thomas Falconer,
Jody-Ann McLeggon,
Patrick B. Ryan,
George Hripcsak,
Marc A. Suchard
Abstract:
Post-market safety surveillance is an integral part of mass vaccination programs. Typically relying on sequential analysis of real-world health data as they accrue, safety surveillance is challenged by the difficulty of sequential multiple testing and by biases induced by residual confounding. The current standard approach based on the maximized sequential probability ratio test (MaxSPRT) fails to…
▽ More
Post-market safety surveillance is an integral part of mass vaccination programs. Typically relying on sequential analysis of real-world health data as they accrue, safety surveillance is challenged by the difficulty of sequential multiple testing and by biases induced by residual confounding. The current standard approach based on the maximized sequential probability ratio test (MaxSPRT) fails to satisfactorily address these practical challenges and it remains a rigid framework that requires pre-specification of the surveillance schedule. We develop an alternative Bayesian surveillance procedure that addresses both challenges using a more flexible framework. We adopt a joint statistical modeling approach to sequentially estimate the effect of vaccine exposure on the adverse event of interest and correct for estimation bias by simultaneously analyzing a large set of negative control outcomes through a Bayesian hierarchical model. We then compute a posterior probability of the alternative hypothesis via Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling and use it for sequential detection of safety signals. Through an empirical evaluation using six US observational healthcare databases covering more than 360 million patients, we benchmark the proposed procedure against MaxSPRT on testing errors and estimation accuracy, under two epidemiological designs, the historical comparator and the self-controlled case series. We demonstrate that our procedure substantially reduces Type 1 error rates, maintains high statistical power, delivers fast signal detection, and provides considerably more accurate estimation. As an effort to promote open science, we present all empirical results in an R ShinyApp and provide full implementation of our method in the R package EvidenceSynthesis.
△ Less
Submitted 19 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Identification of vaccine effects when exposure status is unknown
Authors:
Mats J. Stensrud,
Louisa H. Smith
Abstract:
Results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) help determine vaccination strategies and related public health policies. However, defining and identifying estimands that can guide policies in infectious disease settings is difficult, even in an RCT. The effects of vaccination critically depend on characteristics of the population of interest, such as the prevalence of infection, the number of va…
▽ More
Results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) help determine vaccination strategies and related public health policies. However, defining and identifying estimands that can guide policies in infectious disease settings is difficult, even in an RCT. The effects of vaccination critically depend on characteristics of the population of interest, such as the prevalence of infection, the number of vaccinated, and social behaviors. To mitigate the dependence on such characteristics, estimands, and study designs, that require conditioning or intervening on exposure to the infectious agent have been advocated. But a fundamental problem for both RCTs and observational studies is that exposure status is often unavailable or difficult to measure, which has made it impossible to apply existing methodology to study vaccine effects that account for exposure status. In this work, we present new results on this type of vaccine effects. Under plausible conditions, we show that point identification of certain relative effects is possible even when the exposure status is unknown. Furthermore, we derive sharp bounds on the corresponding absolute effects. We apply these results to estimate the effects of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine on SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19) conditional on post-vaccine exposure to the virus, using data from a large RCT.
△ Less
Submitted 20 January, 2023; v1 submitted 22 November, 2021;
originally announced November 2021.
-
Multiple-bias sensitivity analysis using bounds
Authors:
Louisa H. Smith,
Maya B. Mathur,
Tyler J. VanderWeele
Abstract:
Unmeasured confounding, selection bias, and measurement error are well-known sources of bias in epidemiologic research. Methods for assessing these biases have their own limitations. Many quantitative sensitivity analysis approaches consider each type of bias individually, while more complex approaches are harder to implement or require numerous assumptions. By failing to consider multiple biases…
▽ More
Unmeasured confounding, selection bias, and measurement error are well-known sources of bias in epidemiologic research. Methods for assessing these biases have their own limitations. Many quantitative sensitivity analysis approaches consider each type of bias individually, while more complex approaches are harder to implement or require numerous assumptions. By failing to consider multiple biases at once, researchers can underestimate -- or overestimate -- their joint impact. We show that it is possible to bound the total composite bias due to these three sources, and to use that bound to assess the sensitivity of a risk ratio to any combination of these biases. We derive bounds for the total composite bias under a variety of scenarios, providing researchers with tools to assess their total potential impact. We apply this technique to a study where unmeasured confounding and selection bias are both concerns, and to another study in which possible differential exposure misclassification and unmeasured confounding are concerns. We also show that a "multi-bias E-value" can describe the minimal strength of joint bias-parameter association necessary for an observed risk ratio to be compatible with a null causal effect (or with other pre-specified effect sizes). This may provide intuition about the relative impacts of each type of bias. The approach we describe is easy to implement with minimal assumptions, and we provide R functions to do so.
△ Less
Submitted 6 May, 2020;
originally announced May 2020.
-
Bounding bias due to selection
Authors:
Louisa H. Smith,
Tyler J. VanderWeele
Abstract:
When epidemiologic studies are conducted in a subset of the population, selection bias can threaten the validity of causal inference. This bias can occur whether or not that selected population is the target population, and can occur even in the absence of exposure-outcome confounding. However, it is often difficult to quantify the extent of selection bias, and sensitivity analysis can be challeng…
▽ More
When epidemiologic studies are conducted in a subset of the population, selection bias can threaten the validity of causal inference. This bias can occur whether or not that selected population is the target population, and can occur even in the absence of exposure-outcome confounding. However, it is often difficult to quantify the extent of selection bias, and sensitivity analysis can be challenging to undertake and to understand. In this article we demonstrate that the magnitude of the bias due to selection can be bounded by simple expressions defined by parameters characterizing the relationships between unmeasured factor(s) responsible for the bias and the measured variables. No functional form assumptions are necessary about those unmeasured factors. Using knowledge about the selection mechanism, researchers can account for the possible extent of selection bias by specifying the size of the parameters in the bounds. We also show that the bounds, which differ depending on the target population, result in summary measures that can be used to calculate the minimum magnitude of the parameters required to shift a risk ratio to the null. The summary measure can be used to determine the overall strength of selection that would be necessary to explain away a result. We then show that the bounds and summary measures can be simplified in certain contexts or with certain assumptions. Using examples with varying selection mechanisms, we also demonstrate how researchers can implement these simple sensitivity analyses.
△ Less
Submitted 5 June, 2019; v1 submitted 31 October, 2018;
originally announced October 2018.
