title: Accommodating missingness when assessing surrogacy via principal stratification.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  When an outcome of interest in a clinical trial is late-occurring or difficult to obtain, surrogate markers can extract information about the effect of the treatment on the outcome of interest. Understanding associations between the causal effect (CE) of treatment on the outcome and the causal effect of treatment on the surrogate is critical to understanding the value of a surrogate from a clinical perspective.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  Traditional regression approaches to determine the proportion of the treatment effect explained by surrogate markers suffer from several shortcomings: they can be unstable and can lie outside the 0-1 range. Furthermore, they do not account for the fact that surrogate measures are obtained post randomization, and thus, the surrogate-outcome relationship may be subject to unmeasured confounding.
  
  
  METHODS
  to avoid these problems are of key importance. Methods Frangakis and Rubin suggested assessing the CE within prerandomization 'principal strata' defined by the counterfactual joint distribution of the surrogate marker under the different treatment arms, with the proportion of the overall outcome CE attributable to subjects for whom the treatment affects the proposed surrogate as the key measure of interest. Li et al. developed this 'principal surrogacy' approach for dichotomous markers and outcomes, utilizing Bayesian methods that accommodated nonidentifiability in the model parameters. Because the surrogate marker is typically observed early, outcome data are often missing. Here, we extend Li et al. to accommodate missing data in the observable final outcome under ignorable and nonignorable settings. We also allow for the possibility that missingness has a counterfactual component, a feature that previous literature has not addressed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We apply the proposed methods to a trial of glaucoma control comparing surgery versus medication, where intraocular pressure (IOP) control at 12 months is a surrogate for IOP control at 96 months. We also conduct a series of simulations to consider the impacts of nonignorability, as well as sensitivity to priors and the ability of the decision information criterion (DIC) to choose the correct model when parameters are not fully identified.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Because model parameters cannot be fully identified from data, informative priors can introduce nontrivial bias in moderate sample size settings, while more noninformative priors can yield wide credible intervals.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Assessing the linkage between CEs of treatment on a surrogate marker and CEs of a treatment on an outcome is important to understanding the value of a marker. These CEs are not fully identifiable; hence, we explore the sensitivity and identifiability aspects of these models and show that relatively weak assumptions can still yield meaningful results.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. mrelliot@umich.edu
authors.forename: Michael R
authors.initials: MR
authors.lastname: Elliott
authors.forename: Yun
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Li
authors.forename: Jeremy M G
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Taylor
mesh_terms: D015415:Biomarkers; D005901:Glaucoma / Q000628:therapy; D006801:Humans; D007429:Intraocular Pressure; D015233:Models, Statistical; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000379:methods*; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D015415:Biomarkers
references.citation: Control Clin Trials. 2002 Dec;23(6):607-25
references.pmid: 12505240
references.citation: Stat Med. 1989 Apr;8(4):431-40
references.pmid: 2727467
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2010 Dec;15(4):309-34
references.pmid: 20954780
references.citation: Stat Med. 1992 Jan 30;11(2):167-78
references.pmid: 1579756
references.citation: Int J Biostat. 2011 Mar 30;7(1):20
references.pmid: 21556288
references.citation: Biometrics. 2008 Dec;64(4):1146-54
references.pmid: 18363776
references.citation: Biometrics. 2009 Sep;65(3):675-82
references.pmid: 18759847
references.citation: Biometrics. 2009 Jun;65(2):530-8
references.pmid: 18759836
references.citation: Biostatistics. 2010 Apr;11(2):353-72
references.pmid: 20101045
references.citation: Biostatistics. 2011 Jul;12(3):478-92
references.pmid: 21252079
references.citation: Biostatistics. 2000 Mar;1(1):49-67
references.pmid: 12933525
references.citation: Biometrics. 2010 Jun;66(2):523-31
references.pmid: 19673864
references.citation: Biometrics. 2009 Mar;65(1):88-95
references.pmid: 18397338
references.citation: J R Stat Soc Ser C Appl Stat. 2010 May;59(3):513-531
references.pmid: 21637737
references.citation: Int J Biostat. 2010;6(2):Article 17
references.pmid: 21972432
references.citation: Biometrics. 2005 Dec;61(4):1102-11
references.pmid: 16401284
references.citation: Am J Ophthalmol. 2000 Oct;130(4):429-40
references.pmid: 11024415
references.citation: Int J Biostat. 2011;7(1):
references.pmid: 21841939
references.citation: Epidemiology. 2010 Jul;21(4):540-51
references.pmid: 20479643
references.citation: Stat Med. 1993 May 15;12(9):835-42
references.pmid: 8101011
references.citation: Biometrics. 2002 Mar;58(1):21-9
references.pmid: 11890317
references.citation: Epidemiology. 1992 Mar;3(2):143-55
references.pmid: 1576220
references.citation: Biometrics. 2004 Sep;60(3):598-607
references.pmid: 15339281
references.citation: Ophthalmology. 1999 Apr;106(4):653-62
references.pmid: 10201583