Using Negative Control Outcomes and Difference-in-Differences Analysis to Estimate Treatment Effects in an Entirely Treated Cohort: The Effect of Ivacaftor in Cystic Fibrosis.

When an entire cohort of patients receives a treatment, it is difficult to estimate the treatment effect in the treated because there are no directly comparable untreated patients. Attempts can be made to find a suitable control group (e.g., historical controls), but underlying differences between the treated and untreated can result in bias. Here we show how negative control outcomes combined with difference-in-differences analysis can be used to assess bias in treatment effect estimates and obtain unbiased estimates under certain assumptions. Causal diagrams and potential outcomes are used to explain the methods and assumptions. We apply the methods to UK Cystic Fibrosis Registry data to investigate the effect of ivacaftor, introduced in 2012 for a subset of the cystic fibrosis population with a particular genotype, on lung function and annual rate (days/year) of receiving intravenous (IV) antibiotics (i.e., IV days). We consider 2 negative control outcomes: outcomes measured in the pre-ivacaftor period and outcomes among persons ineligible for ivacaftor because of their genotype. Ivacaftor was found to improve lung function in year 1 (an approximately 6.5-percentage-point increase in ppFEV1), was associated with reduced lung function decline (an approximately 0.5-percentage-point decrease in annual ppFEV1 decline, though confidence intervals included 0), and reduced the annual rate of IV days (approximately 60% over 3 years).

Estimating long-term treatment effects in observational data: A comparison of the performance of different methods under real-world uncertainty.

In the presence of time-dependent confounding, there are several methods available to estimate treatment effects. With correctly specified models and appropriate structural assumptions, any of these methods could provide consistent effect estimates, but with real-world data, all models will be misspecified and it is difficult to know if assumptions are violated. In this paper, we investigate five methods: inverse probability weighting of marginal structural models, history-adjusted marginal structural models, sequential conditional mean models, g-computation formula, and g-estimation of structural nested models. This work is motivated by an investigation of the effects of treatments in cystic fibrosis using the UK Cystic Fibrosis Registry data focussing on two outcomes: lung function (continuous outcome) and annual number of days receiving intravenous antibiotics (count outcome). We identified five features of this data that may affect the performance of the methods: misspecification of the causal null, long-term treatment effects, effect modification by time-varying covariates, misspecification of the direction of causal pathways, and censoring. In simulation studies, under ideal settings, all five methods provide consistent estimates of the treatment effect with little difference between methods. However, all methods performed poorly under some settings, highlighting the importance of using appropriate methods based on the data available. Furthermore, with the count outcome, the issue of non-collapsibility makes comparison between methods delivering marginal and conditional effects difficult. In many situations, we would recommend using more than one of the available methods for analysis, as if the effect estimates are very different, this would indicate potential issues with the analyses.