  Marginal structural models (MSMs) are commonly used to estimate causal
intervention effects in longitudinal non-randomised studies. A common issue
when analysing data from observational studies is the presence of incomplete
confounder data, which might lead to bias in the intervention effect estimates
if they are not handled properly in the statistical analysis. However, there is
currently no recommendation on how to address missing data on covariates in
MSMs under a variety of missingness mechanisms encountered in practice. We
reviewed existing methods to handling missing data in MSMs and performed a
simulation study to compare the performance of complete case (CC) analysis, the
last observation carried forward (LOCF), the missingness pattern approach
(MPA), multiple imputation (MI) and inverse-probability-of-missingness
weighting (IPMW). We considered three mechanisms for non-monotone missing data
which are common in observational studies using electronic health record data.
Whereas CC analysis lead to biased estimates of the intervention effect in
almost all scenarios, the performance of the other approaches varied across
scenarios. The LOCF approach led to unbiased estimates only under a specific
non-random mechanism in which confounder values were missing when their values
remained unchanged since the previous measurement. In this scenario, MI, the
MPA and IPMW were biased. MI and IPMW led to the estimation of unbiased effects
when data were missing at random, given the covariates or the treatment but
only MI was unbiased when the outcome was a predictor of missingness.
Furthermore, IPMW generally lead to very large standard errors. Lastly,
regardless of the missingness mechanism, the MPA led to unbiased estimates only
when the failure to record a confounder at a given time-point modified the
subsequent relationships between the partially observed covariate and the
outcome.
