Assessing methods for dealing with treatment switching in randomised controlled trials: a simulation study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
We investigate methods used to analyse the results of clinical trials with survival outcomes in which some patients switch from their allocated treatment to another trial treatment. These included simple methods which are commonly used in medical literature and may be subject to selection bias if patients switching are not typical of the population as a whole. Methods which attempt to adjust the estimated treatment effect, either through adjustment to the hazard ratio or via accelerated failure time models, were also considered. A simulation study was conducted to assess the performance of each method in a number of different scenarios.Results
16 different scenarios were identified which differed by the proportion of patients switching, underlying prognosis of switchers and the size of true treatment effect. 1000 datasets were simulated for each of these and all methods applied. Selection bias was observed in simple methods when the difference in survival between switchers and non-switchers were large. A number of methods, particularly the AFT method of Branson and Whitehead were found to give less biased estimates of the true treatment effect in these situations.Conclusions
Simple methods are often not appropriate to deal with treatment switching. Alternative approaches such as the Branson & Whitehead method to adjust for switching should be considered.
SUBMITTER: Morden JP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3024998 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often considered as the gold standard for assessing new health interventions. Patients are randomly assigned to receive an intervention or control. The effect of the intervention can be estimated by comparing outcomes between groups, whose prognostic factors are expected to balance by randomisation. However, patients' non-compliance with their assigned treatment will undermine randomisation and potentially bias the estimate of treatment effect. Through simulation, we aim to compare common approaches in analysing non-compliant data under different non-compliant scenarios.Based on a real study, we simulated hypothetical trials by varying three non-compliant factors: the type, randomness and degree of non-compliance. We compared the intention-to-treat (ITT), as-treated (AT), per-protocol (PP), instrumental variable (IV) and complier average casual effect (CACE) analyses to estimate large (50% improvement over the control), moderate (25% improvement) and null (same as the control) treatment effects. Different approaches were compared by the bias of estimate, mean square error (MSE) and 95% coverage of the true value.For a large or moderate treatment effect, the ITT estimate was considerably biased in all scenarios. The AT, PP, IV and CACE estimates were unbiased when non-compliant behaviours were random. The IV estimate was unbiased when non-compliant behaviours were symmetrically dependent on patients' conditions. The PP estimate was mostly unbiased when patients in the control group did not have access to the intervention. When the intervention was not different from the control, the ITT was less biased than the other approaches. Similar results were found when comparing the MSE and 95% coverage.The standard ITT analysis under non-compliance is biased when the intervention has a moderate or large effect. Alternative analyses can provide unbiased or less biased estimates. Based on the results, we make some suggestions on choosing optimal approaches for analysing specific non-compliant scenarios.
| S-EPMC4067862 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:In individually randomised trials we might expect interventions delivered in groups or by care providers to result in clustering of outcomes for participants treated in the same group or by the same care provider. In partially nested randomised controlled trials (pnRCTs) this clustering only occurs in one trial arm, commonly the intervention arm. It is important to measure and account for between-cluster variability in trial design and analysis. We compare analysis approaches for pnRCTs with continuous outcomes, investigating the impact on statistical inference of cluster sizes, coding of the non-clustered arm, intracluster correlation coefficient (ICCs), and differential variance between intervention and control arm, and provide recommendations for analysis. METHODS:We performed a simulation study assessing the performance of six analysis approaches for a two-arm pnRCT with a continuous outcome. These include: linear regression model; fully clustered mixed-effects model with singleton clusters in control arm; fully clustered mixed-effects model with one large cluster in control arm; fully clustered mixed-effects model with pseudo clusters in control arm; partially nested homoscedastic mixed effects model, and partially nested heteroscedastic mixed effects model. We varied the cluster size, number of clusters, ICC, and individual variance between the two trial arms. RESULTS:All models provided unbiased intervention effect estimates. In the partially nested mixed-effects models, methods for classifying the non-clustered control arm had negligible impact. Failure to account for even small ICCs resulted in inflated Type I error rates and over-coverage of confidence intervals. Fully clustered mixed effects models provided poor control of the Type I error rates and biased ICC estimates. The heteroscedastic partially nested mixed-effects model maintained relatively good control of Type I error rates, unbiased ICC estimation, and did not noticeably reduce power even with homoscedastic individual variances across arms. CONCLUSIONS:In general, we recommend the use of a heteroscedastic partially nested mixed-effects model, which models the clustering in only one arm, for continuous outcomes similar to those generated under the scenarios of our simulations study. However, with few clusters (3-6), small cluster sizes (5-10), and small ICC (?0.05) this model underestimates Type I error rates and there is no optimal model.
| S-EPMC6186141 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundUse of real world data (RWD) from non-randomised studies (e.g. single-arm studies) is increasingly being explored to overcome issues associated with data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to compare methods for pairwise meta-analysis of RCTs and single-arm studies using aggregate data, via a simulation study and application to an illustrative example.MethodsWe considered contrast-based methods proposed by Begg & Pilote (1991) and arm-based methods by Zhang et al (2019). We performed a simulation study with scenarios varying (i) the proportion of RCTs and single-arm studies in the synthesis (ii) the magnitude of bias, and (iii) between-study heterogeneity. We also applied methods to data from a published health technology assessment (HTA), including three RCTs and 11 single-arm studies.ResultsOur simulation study showed that the hierarchical power and commensurate prior methods by Zhang et al provided a consistent reduction in uncertainty, whilst maintaining over-coverage and small error in scenarios where there was limited RCT data, bias and differences in between-study heterogeneity between the two sets of data. The contrast-based methods provided a reduction in uncertainty, but performed worse in terms of coverage and error, unless there was no marked difference in heterogeneity between the two sets of data.ConclusionsThe hierarchical power and commensurate prior methods provide the most robust approach to synthesising aggregate data from RCTs and single-arm studies, balancing the need to account for bias and differences in between-study heterogeneity, whilst reducing uncertainty in estimates. This work was restricted to considering a pairwise meta-analysis using aggregate data.
| S-EPMC8176581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTreatment switching is common in randomised trials of oncology treatments, with control group patients switching onto the experimental treatment during follow-up. This distorts an intention-to-treat comparison of the treatments under investigation. Two-stage estimation (TSE) can be used to estimate counterfactual survival times for patients who switch treatments - that is, survival times that would have been observed in the absence of switching. However, when switchers do not die during the study, counterfactual censoring times are estimated, inducing informative censoring. Re-censoring is usually applied alongside TSE to resolve this problem, but results in lost longer-term information - a major concern if the objective is to estimate long-term treatment effects, as is usually the case in health technology assessment. Inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW) represents an alternative technique for addressing informative censoring but has not before been combined with TSE. We aim to determine whether combining TSE with IPCW (TSEipcw) represents a valid alternative to re-censoring.MethodsWe conducted a simulation study to compare TSEipcw to TSE with and without re-censoring. We simulated 48 scenarios where control group patients could switch onto the experimental treatment, with switching affected by prognosis. We investigated various switching proportions, treatment effects, survival function shapes, disease severities and switcher prognoses. We assessed the alternative TSE applications according to their estimation of control group restricted mean survival (RMST) that would have been observed in the absence of switching up to the end of trial follow-up.ResultsTSEipcw performed well when its weights had a low coefficient of variation, but performed poorly when the coefficient of variation was high. Re-censored analyses usually under-estimated control group RMST, whereas non-re-censored analyses usually produced over-estimates, with bias more serious when the treatment effect was high. In scenarios where TSEipcw performed well, it produced low bias that was often between the two extremes associated with the re-censoring and non-recensoring options.ConclusionsTreatment switching adjustment analyses using TSE should be conducted with re-censoring, without re-censoring, and with IPCW to explore the sensitivity in results to these application options. This should allow analysts and decision-makers to better interpret the results of adjustment analyses.
| S-EPMC6444622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Increasing numbers of economic evaluations are conducted alongside randomised controlled trials. Such studies include factorial trials, which randomise patients to different levels of two or more factors and can therefore evaluate the effect of multiple treatments alone and in combination. Factorial trials can provide increased statistical power or assess interactions between treatments, but raise additional challenges for trial-based economic evaluations: interactions may occur more commonly for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than for clinical endpoints; economic endpoints raise challenges for transformation and regression analysis; and both factors must be considered simultaneously to assess which treatment combination represents best value for money. This article aims to examine issues associated with factorial trials that include assessment of costs and/or cost-effectiveness, describe the methods that can be used to analyse such studies and make recommendations for health economists, statisticians and trialists. A hypothetical worked example is used to illustrate the challenges and demonstrate ways in which economic evaluations of factorial trials may be conducted, and how these methods affect the results and conclusions. Ignoring interactions introduces bias that could result in adopting a treatment that does not make best use of healthcare resources, while considering all interactions avoids bias but reduces statistical power. We also introduce the concept of the opportunity cost of ignoring interactions as a measure of the bias introduced by not taking account of all interactions. We conclude by offering recommendations for planning, analysing and reporting economic evaluations based on factorial trials, taking increased analysis costs into account. © 2017 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
| S-EPMC5599939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBaseline outcome risk can be an important determinant of absolute treatment benefit and has been used in guidelines for "personalizing" medical decisions. We compared easily applicable risk-based methods for optimal prediction of individualized treatment effects.MethodsWe simulated RCT data using diverse assumptions for the average treatment effect, a baseline prognostic index of risk, the shape of its interaction with treatment (none, linear, quadratic or non-monotonic), and the magnitude of treatment-related harms (none or constant independent of the prognostic index). We predicted absolute benefit using: models with a constant relative treatment effect; stratification in quarters of the prognostic index; models including a linear interaction of treatment with the prognostic index; models including an interaction of treatment with a restricted cubic spline transformation of the prognostic index; an adaptive approach using Akaike's Information Criterion. We evaluated predictive performance using root mean squared error and measures of discrimination and calibration for benefit.ResultsThe linear-interaction model displayed optimal or close-to-optimal performance across many simulation scenarios with moderate sample size (N = 4,250; ~ 785 events). The restricted cubic splines model was optimal for strong non-linear deviations from a constant treatment effect, particularly when sample size was larger (N = 17,000). The adaptive approach also required larger sample sizes. These findings were illustrated in the GUSTO-I trial.ConclusionsAn interaction between baseline risk and treatment assignment should be considered to improve treatment effect predictions.
| S-EPMC10045909 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRegarding the analysis of RCT data there is a debate going on whether an adjustment for the baseline value of the outcome variable should be made. When an adjustment is made, there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding the way this should be done. Therefore, the aims of this educational paper are: 1) to explain different methods used to estimate treatment effects in RCTs, 2) to illustrate the different methods with a real life example and 3) to give an advise on how to analyse RCT data.MethodsLongitudinal analysis of covariance, repeated measures analysis in which also the baseline value is used as outcome and the analysis of changes were theoretically explained and applied to an example dataset investigating a systolic blood pressure lowering treatment.ResultsIt was shown that differences at baseline should be taken into account and that regular repeated measures analysis and regular analysis of changes did not adjust for the baseline differences between the groups and therefore lead to biased estimates of the treatment effect. In the real life example, due to the differences at baseline between the treatment and control group, the different methods lead to different estimates of the treatment effect.ConclusionRegarding the analysis of RCT data, it is advised to use longitudinal analysis of covariance or a repeated measures analysis without the treatment variable, but with the interaction between treatment and time in the model.
| S-EPMC5898524 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Assistive products are items which allow older people and people with disabilities to be able to live a healthy, productive and dignified life. It has been estimated that approximately 1.5% of the world's population need a prosthesis or orthosis. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to systematically identify and review the evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prosthetic and orthotic interventions. METHODS:Literature searches, completed in September 2015, were carried out in fourteen databases between years 1995 and 2015. The search results were independently screened by two reviewers. For the purpose of this manuscript, only randomized controlled trials which examined interventions using orthotic or prosthetic devices were selected for data extraction and synthesis. RESULTS:A total of 342 randomised controlled trials were identified (319 English language and 23 non-English language). Only 4 of these randomised controlled trials examined prosthetic interventions and the rest examined orthotic interventions. These orthotic interventions were categorised based on the medical conditions/injuries of the participants. From these studies, this review focused on the medical condition/injuries with the highest number of randomised controlled trials (osteoarthritis, fracture, stroke, carpal tunnel syndrome, plantar fasciitis, anterior cruciate ligament, diabetic foot, rheumatoid and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankle sprain, cerebral palsy, lateral epicondylitis and low back pain). The included articles were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Details of the clinical population examined, the type of orthotic/prosthetic intervention, the comparator/s and the outcome measures were extracted. Effect sizes and odds ratios were calculated for all outcome measures, where possible. CONCLUSIONS:At present, for prosthetic and orthotic interventions, the scientific literature does not provide sufficient high quality research to allow strong conclusions on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
| S-EPMC5851539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Cohort Multiple Randomised Controlled Trial (cmRCT) is a newly proposed pragmatic trial design; recently several cmRCT have been initiated. This study tests the unresolved question of whether differential refusal in the intervention arm leads to bias or loss of statistical power and how to deal with this.We conduct simulations evaluating a hypothetical cluster cmRCT in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). To deal with refusal, we compare the analysis methods intention to treat (ITT), per protocol (PP) and two instrumental variable (IV) methods: two stage predictor substitution (2SPS) and two stage residual inclusion (2SRI) with respect to their bias and power. We vary the correlation between treatment refusal probability and the probability of experiencing the outcome to create different scenarios.We found ITT to be biased in all scenarios, PP the most biased when correlation is strong and 2SRI the least biased on average. Trials suffer a drop in power unless the refusal rate is factored into the power calculation.The ITT effect in routine practice is likely to lie somewhere between the ITT and IV estimates from the trial which differ significantly depending on refusal rates. More research is needed on how refusal rates of experimental interventions correlate with refusal rates in routine practice to help answer the question of which analysis more relevant. We also recommend updating the required sample size during the trial as more information about the refusal rate is gained.
| S-EPMC5000409 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:While randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide high-quality evidence to guide practice, much routine care is not based upon available RCTs. This disconnect between evidence and practice is not sufficiently well understood. This case study explores this relationship using a novel approach. Better understanding may improve trial design, conduct, reporting and implementation, helping patients benefit from the best available evidence. METHODS:We employed a case-study approach, comprising mixed methods to examine the case of interest: the primary outcome paper of a surgical RCT (the TIME trial). Letters and editorials citing the TIME trial's primary report underwent qualitative thematic analysis, and the RCT was critically appraised using validated tools. These analyses were compared to provide insight into how the TIME trial findings were interpreted and appraised by the clinical community. RESULTS:23 letters and editorials were studied. Most authorship included at least one academic (20/23) and one surgeon (21/23). Authors identified wide-ranging issues including confounding variables or outcome selection. Clear descriptions of bias or generalisability were lacking. Structured appraisal identified risks of bias. Non-RCT evidence was less critically appraised. Authors reached varying conclusions about the trial without consistent justification. Authors discussed aspects of internal and external validity covered by appraisal tools but did not use these methodological terms in their articles. CONCLUSIONS:This novel method for examining interpretation of an RCT in the clinical community showed that published responses identified limited issues with trial design. Responses did not provide coherent rationales for accepting (or not) trial results. Findings may suggest that authors lacked skills in appraisal of RCT design and conduct. Multiple case studies with cross-case analysis of other trials are needed.
| S-EPMC7216481 | biostudies-literature