Several of the hypothesized or studied exposures that may affect dementia risk are known to increase the risk of death. This may explain counterintuitive results, where exposures that are known to be harmful for mortality risk sometimes seem protective for the risk of dementia. Authors have attempted to explain these counterintuitive results as biased, but the bias associated with a particular analytic method cannot be defined or assessed if the causal question is not explicitly specified. Indeed, we can consider several causal questions when competing events like death, which cannot be prevented by design, are present. Current dementia research guidelines have not explicitly considered what constitutes a meaningful causal question in this setting or, more generally, how this choice justifies and should drive particular analytic decisions. To contextualize current practices, we first perform a systematic review of the conduct and interpretation of longitudinal studies focused on dementia outcomes where death is a competing event. We then describe and demonstrate how to address different causal questions (referred here as "the total effect" and "the controlled direct effect") with traditional analytic approaches under explicit assumptions. Our application focuses on smoking cessation in late-midlife. To illustrate core concepts, we discuss this example both in terms of a hypothetical randomized trial and with an emulation of such a trial using observational data from the Rotterdam Study.
Looking at competing events through a different lens in dementia research: Examples from the Rotterdam Study