Dataset Information

Estimating treatment effect in a proportional hazards model in randomized clinical trials with all-or-nothing compliance.

ABSTRACT: We consider methods for estimating the treatment effect and/or the covariate by treatment interaction effect in a randomized clinical trial under noncompliance with time-to-event outcome. As in Cuzick et al. (2007), assuming that the patient population consists of three (possibly latent) subgroups based on treatment preference: the ambivalent group, the insisters, and the refusers, we estimate the effects among the ambivalent group. The parameters have causal interpretations under standard assumptions. The article contains two main contributions. First, we propose a weighted per-protocol (Wtd PP) estimator through incorporating time-varying weights in a proportional hazards model. In the second part of the article, under the model considered in Cuzick et al. (2007), we propose an EM algorithm to maximize a full likelihood (FL) as well as the pseudo likelihood (PL) considered in Cuzick et al. (2007). The E step of the algorithm involves computing the conditional expectation of a linear function of the latent membership, and the main advantage of the EM algorithm is that the risk parameters can be updated by fitting a weighted Cox model using standard software and the baseline hazard can be updated using closed-form solutions. Simulations show that the EM algorithm is computationally much more efficient than directly maximizing the observed likelihood. The main advantage of the Wtd PP approach is that it is more robust to model misspecifications among the insisters and refusers since the outcome model does not impose distributional assumptions among these two groups.

SUBMITTER: Li S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5113714 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Estimating treatment effect in a proportional hazards model in randomized clinical trials with all-or-nothing compliance.

Li Shuli S Gray Robert J RJ

Biometrics 20160122 3

We consider methods for estimating the treatment effect and/or the covariate by treatment interaction effect in a randomized clinical trial under noncompliance with time-to-event outcome. As in Cuzick et al. (2007), assuming that the patient population consists of three (possibly latent) subgroups based on treatment preference: the ambivalent group, the insisters, and the refusers, we estimate the effects among the ambivalent group. The parameters have causal interpretations under standard assum ...[more]

PMID: 26799700

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveRandomised 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.SettingsBased 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.ResultsFor 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Dataset Information

Estimating treatment effect in a proportional hazards model in randomized clinical trials with all-or-nothing compliance.

Publications

Estimating treatment effect in a proportional hazards model in randomized clinical trials with all-or-nothing compliance.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets