Response: Commentary: Quantile treatment effect of zinc lozenges on common cold duration: a novel approach to analyze the effect of treatment on illness duration
A Commentary on
Quantile treatment effect of zinc lozenges on common cold duration: A novel approach to analyze the effect of treatment on illness duration
by Hemilä H, Chalker E and Tukiainen J (2022). Front. Pharmacol. 13:817522. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.817522
Introduction
The effect of zinc lozenges on reducing the duration of the common cold is well-established (Hemilä, 2011), but it is not clear how different cold durations are affected by the lozenges. To be precise, define Tplacebo and Ttreatment as the length of a cold episode under placebo and treatment. We cannot observe both random variables at once, hence they are known as potential outcomes (Imbens and Rubin, 2015). The average treatment effect, defined as ATE = E(Ttreatment) − E(Tplacebo), can be estimate using randomized clinical trials. The investigation of Mossad et al. (1996) suggests that ATE ≈ − 4 days, hence zinc lozenge treatment reduces the average length of a cold episode by
How can we quantify the effect of the zinc lozenges on the duration of a cold episode that would have had length t without treatment? Ideally, we would have liked to know the conditional average treatment effect
But this and similar conditional quantities, such as conditional medians, are impossible to estimate from randomized clinical trials alone, as they depend on the joint distribution of Tplacebo and Ttreatment. Estimation would require methods such as matching (Imbens and Rubin, 2015, chap. 18) coupled with severe statistical assumptions.
Hemilä et al. (2022) makes a case for using the quantile treatment effect (Doksum, 1974) when evaluating the effect of zinc lozenges on cold duration. The quantile treatment effect has been widely applied in economics, and certainly has its uses, especially in quantile regression (Koenker and Hallock, 2001). However, Hemilä et al. (2022) claim to estimate a quantity similar to CATE(t) using the quantile treatment effect. For they write, along with numerous similar claims, that
[…] the [quantile treatment effect] analysis indicates that 15- to 17-day colds were shortened by 8 days, and 2-day colds by just 1 day, for the group taking zinc lozenges.
This conclusion is too strong and potentially misleading, as the quantile treatment effect only indicates anything of the sort when quite stringent assumptions on the joint distribution of (Ttreatment, Tplacebo) are met.
The quantile treatment effect
The quantile treatment effect at quantile p is defined as
where Qtreatment and Qplacebo are the quantile functions for the outcome under treatment and placebo.
The authors reached the conclusion cited above by substituting p for Fplacebo(t) (the distribution function of the cold duration under placebo) in the equation for the quantile treatment effect. This substitution yields
Under the assumption that there is a deterministic and increasing relationship between Tplacebo and Ttreatment, it is easy to show that ϕ(t) = CATE(t). However, a deterministic relationship between Tplacebo and Ttreatment is highly unlikely. To see why, consider two patients with exactly the same cold duration, one who is 58 and male and one who is 17 and female. If the relationship between placebo outcome and treatment outcome is deterministic, both patients must have exactly the same cold duration when treated with zinc lozenge. This assumption is virtually guaranteed to be false.
There are infinitely many possible conditional average treatment effects CATE(t) compatible with the observed marginal data only. A way to generate some of them is to use a Gaussian copula (Nelsen, 2007), modelling the dependence structure of a bivariate normal. We can parameterize the conditional average treatment effect by ρ, obtaining a family of functions CATE(t; ρ). It is easy to show that CATE(t; 1) = ϕ(t), that CATE(t; 0) = E(Ttreatment) − t, and that CATE(t; −1) = Qtreatment (1 − Fplacebo(t)) − t.
Figure 1 displays some of the possible conditional average treatment effect curves for the data of Petrus et al. (1998), Prasad et al. (2000), and Prasad et al. (2008) [found in the supplementary materials of Hemilä et al. (2022)] when the copula is Gaussian. For computational convenience, we have assumed that the placebo group is gamma distributed and the treatment group is Weibull distributed. We estimated their parameters using maximum likelihood, and calculated the CATE(t) curves using numerical integration. As can be seen, there are conditional average effect curves of many shapes. The corresponding plot of Hemilä et al. (2022) is Figure 2B, where they used non-parametric estimators for Qtreatment and Qplacebo, and the x-axis is on the percent scale instead of the outcome scale.
Figure 1. Possible CATE curves for the zinc data set when the correlation of the Gaussian copula varies. Hemilä et al. (2022), (Figure 2(B)) based their analysis on a line similar to the “strictly increasing” line, but used non-parameteric estimators for the quantile functions instead of maximum likelihood for gamma and Weibull.
Conclusion
Comments similar to mine have been made in the context of economics by, e.g., Abadie et al. (1998) and Koenker and Bilias (2002), who, in our terminology, emphasize that the quantile treatment effect cannot be used to estimate CATE(t), but that it still have its uses.
It is important to understand how illness duration without treatment relates to illness duration under treatment. This could be done using conditional average treatment effect. It is, however, important not to use methods that cannot answer such questions in a rigorous way, as is the case with the quantile treatment effect suggested by Hemilä et al. (2022).
Author contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abadie, A., Angrist, J. D., and Imbens, G. W. (1998). Instrumental variables estimation of quantile treatment effects. [Preprint]. National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/t0229
Doksum, K. (1974). Empirical probability plots and statistical inference for nonlinear models in the two-sample case. Ann. Statistics 2 (2), 267–277. doi:10.1214/aos/1176342662
Hemilä, H., Chalker, E., and Tukiainen, J. (2022). Quantile treatment effect of zinc lozenges on common cold duration: A Novel Approach to Analyze the effect of treatment on illness duration. Front. Pharmacol. 13, 817522. doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.817522
Hemilä, H. (2011). Zinc lozenges may shorten the duration of colds: A systematic review. Open Respir. Med. J. 5, 51–58. doi:10.2174/1874306401105010051
Imbens, G. W., and Rubin, D. B. (2015). Causal inference in statistics, social, and biomedical Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139025751
Koenker, R., and Bilias, Y. (2002). “Quantile regression for duration data: A reappraisal of the Pennsylvania reemployment bonus experiments,” in Economic applications of quantile regression. Editors B. Fitzenberger, R. Koenker, and J. A. F. Machado (Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag HD), 199–220. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-11592-3/_10
Koenker, R., and Hallock, K. F. (2001). Quantile regression. J. Econ. Perspect. 15 (4), 143–156. doi:10.1257/jep.15.4.143
Mossad, S. B., Macknin, M. L., Medendorp, S. V., and Mason, P. (1996). Zinc gluconate lozenges for treating the common cold. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Ann. Intern. Med. 125 (2), 81–88. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-125-2-199607150-00001
Nelsen, R. B. (2007). An introduction to copulas. Springer Science & Business Media. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3076-0
Petrus, E. J., Lawson, K. A., Bucci, L. R., and Blum, K. (1998). Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical study of the effectiveness of zinc acetate lozenges on common cold symptoms in allergy-tested subjects. Curr. Ther. Res. Clin. Exp. 59 (9), 595–607. doi:10.1016/S0011-393X(98)85058-3
Prasad, A. S., Fitzgerald, J. T., Bao, B., Beck, F. W., and Chandrasekar, P. H. (2000). Duration of symptoms and plasma cytokine levels in patients with the common cold treated with zinc acetate. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 133 (4), 245–252. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-133-4-200008150-00006
Prasad, A. S., Beck, F. W. J., Bao, B., Snell, D., and Fitzgerald, J. T. (2008). Duration and severity of symptoms and levels of plasma interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor, and adhesion molecules in patients with common cold treated with zinc acetate. J. Infect. Dis. 197 (6), 795–802. doi:10.1086/528803
Keywords: causal effect size, outcome measure, copulas, causality, potential outcomes, time-dependence
Citation: Moss J (2023) Commentary: Quantile treatment effect of zinc lozenges on common cold duration: A novel approach to analyze the effect of treatment on illness duration. Front. Pharmacol. 14:1152305. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1152305
Received: 27 January 2023; Accepted: 27 March 2023;
Published: 06 April 2023.
Edited by:
Rashmi Ranjan Das, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, IndiaReviewed by:
Alpana Mishra, Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS), IndiaAmit Agarwal, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), India
Copyright © 2023 Moss. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jonas Moss, am9uYXMubW9zc0BiaS5ubw==