  In comparative effectiveness research, treated and control patients might
have a different start of follow up, e.g. when treatment is started later in
the disease trajectory. When the follow up period of control patients starts
earlier in the disease trajectory than follow up of the treated, estimation of
the treatment effect suffers from different types of survival/survivorship
bias. We study unobserved heterogeneity and illustrate how failing to account
for the time difference in recruitment between treated and controls leads to
bias in the estimated treatment effect. We explore five methods to adjust for
this survivorship bias by including the time between diagnosis and treatment
initiation (wait time) in the analysis in different ways. We first conducted a
simulation study on whether these methods reduce survivorship bias, then
applied our methods to fertility data on insemination. The five methods were:
first, to regress on wait time as an additional covariate in the analysis
model. Second, to match on wait time. Third, to select treated who started
treatment immediately. Fourth, to select controls who survived up to the median
time of treatment initiation. Fifth, to consider the wait time as the time of
left truncation. All methods reduced survivorship bias in the simulation. In
the application to fertility data, failing to adjust for survivorship bias led
to a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.63 (95%CI: 1.13-1.65) whereas a HR of 2.15
(1.71-2.69) was expected when using a time-varying covariate for treatment,
which in this prospective cohort coincided with the left truncation approach.
In agreement with our simulations, the method in which adjustment corrected the
HR upwards the most was left truncation. We conclude that the wait time between
diagnosis and treatment initiation should be taken into account in the analysis
to respect the chronology of the disease and treatment trajectory.
