Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Using instrumental variables to disentangle treatment and placebo effects in blinded and unblinded randomized clinical trials influenced by unmeasured confounders.

ABSTRACT: Clinical trials traditionally employ blinding as a design mechanism to reduce the influence of placebo effects. In practice, however, it can be difficult or impossible to blind study participants and unblinded trials are common in medical research. Here we show how instrumental variables can be used to quantify and disentangle treatment and placebo effects in randomized clinical trials comparing control and active treatments in the presence of confounders. The key idea is to use randomization to separately manipulate treatment assignment and psychological encouragement conversations/interactions that increase the participants' desire for improved symptoms. The proposed approach is able to improve the estimation of treatment effects in blinded studies and, most importantly, opens the doors to account for placebo effects in unblinded trials.

SUBMITTER: Chaibub Neto E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5116680 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Using instrumental variables to disentangle treatment and placebo effects in blinded and unblinded randomized clinical trials influenced by unmeasured confounders.

Chaibub Neto Elias E

Scientific reports 20161121

Clinical trials traditionally employ blinding as a design mechanism to reduce the influence of placebo effects. In practice, however, it can be difficult or impossible to blind study participants and unblinded trials are common in medical research. Here we show how instrumental variables can be used to quantify and disentangle treatment and placebo effects in randomized clinical trials comparing control and active treatments in the presence of confounders. The key idea is to use randomization to ...[more]

PMID: 27869205

Similar Datasets

Blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation in crossover trials balanced for period.

Project description:The determination of the sample size required by a crossover trial typically depends on the specification of one or more variance components. Uncertainty about the value of these parameters at the design stage means that there is often a risk a trial may be under- or overpowered. For many study designs, this problem has been addressed by considering adaptive design methodology that allows for the re-estimation of the required sample size during a trial. Here, we propose and compare several approaches for this in multitreatment crossover trials. Specifically, regulators favor reestimation procedures to maintain the blinding of the treatment allocations. We therefore develop blinded estimators for the within and between person variances, following simple or block randomization. We demonstrate that, provided an equal number of patients are allocated to sequences that are balanced for period, the proposed estimators following block randomization are unbiased. We further provide a formula for the bias of the estimators following simple randomization. The performance of these procedures, along with that of an unblinded approach, is then examined utilizing three motivating examples, including one based on a recently completed four-treatment four-period crossover trial. Simulation results show that the performance of the proposed blinded procedures is in many cases similar to that of the unblinded approach, and thus they are an attractive alternative.

| S-EPMC6175184 | biostudies-literature

Blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation procedures for stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials.

Project description:The ability to accurately estimate the sample size required by a stepped-wedge (SW) cluster randomized trial (CRT) routinely depends upon the specification of several nuisance parameters. If these parameters are misspecified, the trial could be overpowered, leading to increased cost, or underpowered, enhancing the likelihood of a false negative. We address this issue here for cross-sectional SW-CRTs, analyzed with a particular linear-mixed model, by proposing methods for blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation (SSRE). First, blinded estimators for the variance parameters of a SW-CRT analyzed using the Hussey and Hughes model are derived. Following this, procedures for blinded and unblinded SSRE after any time period in a SW-CRT are detailed. The performance of these procedures is then examined and contrasted using two example trial design scenarios. We find that if the two key variance parameters were underspecified by 50%, the SSRE procedures were able to increase power over the conventional SW-CRT design by up to 41%, resulting in an empirical power above the desired level. Thus, though there are practical issues to consider, the performance of the procedures means researchers should consider incorporating SSRE in to future SW-CRTs.

| S-EPMC6175439 | biostudies-literature

Bespoke Instruments: A new tool for addressing unmeasured confounders.

Project description:Suppose that an investigator is interested in quantifying an exposure-disease causal association in a setting where the exposure, disease, and some potential confounders of the association of interest have been measured. However, there remains concern about residual confounding of the association of interest by unmeasured confounders. We propose an approach to account for residual bias due to unmeasured confounders. The proposed approach uses a measured confounder to derive a "bespoke" instrumental variable that is tailored to the study population and is used to control for bias due to residual confounding. The approach may provide a useful tool for assessing and accounting for bias due to residual confounding. We provide a formal description of the conditions for identification of causal effects, illustrate the method using simulations, and provide an empirical example concerning mortality among Japanese atomic bomb survivors.

| S-EPMC9430468 | biostudies-literature

Two-stage Bayesian hierarchical modeling for blinded and unblinded safety monitoring in randomized clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundMonitoring and reporting of drug safety during a clinical trial is essential to its success. More recent attention to drug safety has encouraged statistical methods development for monitoring and detecting potential safety signals. This paper investigates the potential impact of the process of the blinded investigator identifying a potential safety signal, which should be further investigated by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board with an unblinded safety data analysis.MethodsIn this paper, two-stage Bayesian hierarchical models are proposed for safety signal detection following a pre-specified set of interim analyses that are applied to efficacy. At stage 1, a hierarchical blinded model uses blinded safety data to detect a potential safety signal and at stage 2, a hierarchical logistic model is applied to confirm the signal with unblinded safety data.ResultsAny interim safety monitoring analysis is usually scheduled via negotiation between the trial sponsor and the Data and Safety Monitoring Board. The proposed safety monitoring process starts once 53 subjects have been enrolled into an eight-arm phase II clinical trial for the first interim analysis. Operating characteristics describing the performance of this proposed workflow are investigated using simulations based on the different scenarios.ConclusionsThe two-stage Bayesian safety procedure in this paper provides a statistical view to monitor safety during the clinical trials. The proposed two-stage monitoring model has an excellent accuracy of detecting and flagging a potential safety signal at stage 1, and with the most important feature that further action at stage 2 could confirm the safety issue.

| S-EPMC7433072 | biostudies-literature

Using an instrumental variable to test for unmeasured confounding.

Project description:An important concern in an observational study is whether or not there is unmeasured confounding, that is, unmeasured ways in which the treatment and control groups differ before treatment, which affect the outcome. We develop a test of whether there is unmeasured confounding when an instrumental variable (IV) is available. An IV is a variable that is independent of the unmeasured confounding and encourages a subject to take one treatment level versus another, while having no effect on the outcome beyond its encouragement of a certain treatment level. We show what types of unmeasured confounding can be tested for with an IV and develop a test for this type of unmeasured confounding that has correct type I error rate. We show that the widely used Durbin-Wu-Hausman test can have inflated type I error rates when there is treatment effect heterogeneity. Additionally, we show that our test provides more insight into the nature of the unmeasured confounding than the Durbin-Wu-Hausman test. We apply our test to an observational study of the effect of a premature infant being delivered in a high-level neonatal intensive care unit (one with mechanical assisted ventilation and high volume) versus a lower level unit, using the excess travel time a mother lives from the nearest high-level unit to the nearest lower-level unit as an IV.

| S-EPMC4145076 | biostudies-literature

Estimating cost-effectiveness from claims and registry data with measured and unmeasured confounders.

Project description:The analysis of observational data to determine the cost-effectiveness of medical treatments is complicated by the need to account for skewness, censoring, and the effects of measured and unmeasured confounders. We quantify cost-effectiveness as the Net Monetary Benefit (NMB), a linear combination of the treatment effects on cost and effectiveness that denominates utility in monetary terms. We propose a parametric estimation approach that describes cost with a Gamma generalized linear model and survival time (the canonical effectiveness variable) with a Weibull accelerated failure time model. To account for correlation between cost and survival, we propose a bootstrap procedure to compute confidence intervals for NMB. To examine sensitivity to unmeasured confounders, we derive simple approximate relationships between naïve parameters, assuming only measured confounders, and the values those parameters would take if there was further adjustment for a single unmeasured confounder with a specified distribution. A simulation study shows that the method returns accurate estimates for treatment effects on cost, survival, and NMB under the assumed model. We apply our method to compare two treatments for Stage II/III bladder cancer, concluding that the NMB is sensitive to hypothesized unmeasured confounders that represent smoking status and personal income.

| S-EPMC7673459 | biostudies-literature

Genetic markers as instrumental variables.

Project description:The use of genetic markers as instrumental variables (IV) is receiving increasing attention from economists, statisticians, epidemiologists and social scientists. Although IV is commonly used in economics, the appropriate conditions for the use of genetic variants as instruments have not been well defined. The increasing availability of biomedical data, however, makes understanding of these conditions crucial to the successful use of genotypes as instruments. We combine the econometric IV literature with that from genetic epidemiology, and discuss the biological conditions and IV assumptions within the statistical potential outcomes framework. We review this in the context of two illustrative applications.

| S-EPMC4770870 | biostudies-literature

Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confounders.

Project description:Uncontrolled confounding in observational studies gives rise to biased effect estimates. Sensitivity analysis techniques can be useful in assessing the magnitude of these biases. In this paper, we use the potential outcomes framework to derive a general class of sensitivity-analysis formulas for outcomes, treatments, and measured and unmeasured confounding variables that may be categorical or continuous. We give results for additive, risk-ratio and odds-ratio scales. We show that these results encompass a number of more specific sensitivity-analysis methods in the statistics and epidemiology literature. The applicability, usefulness, and limits of the bias-adjustment formulas are discussed. We illustrate the sensitivity-analysis techniques that follow from our results by applying them to 3 different studies. The bias formulas are particularly simple and easy to use in settings in which the unmeasured confounding variable is binary with constant effect on the outcome across treatment levels.

| S-EPMC3073860 | biostudies-literature

Identifying Causal Effects With Proxy Variables of an Unmeasured Confounder.

Project description:We consider a causal effect that is confounded by an unobserved variable, but with observed proxy variables of the confounder. We show that, with at least two independent proxy variables satisfying a certain rank condition, the causal effect is nonparametrically identified, even if the measurement error mechanism, i.e., the conditional distribution of the proxies given the confounder, may not be identified. Our result generalizes the identification strategy of Kuroki & Pearl (2014) that rests on identification of the measurement error mechanism. When only one proxy for the confounder is available, or the required rank condition is not met, we develop a strategy to test the null hypothesis of no causal effect.

| S-EPMC7746017 | biostudies-literature

External adjustment of unmeasured confounders in a case-control study of benzodiazepine use and cancer risk.

Project description:AimsPrevious studies have reported diverging results on the association between benzodiazepine use and cancer risk.MethodsWe investigated this association in a matched case-control study including incident cancer cases during 2002-2009 in the Danish Cancer Registry (n = 94?923) and age- and sex-matched (1:8) population controls (n = 759?334). Long-term benzodiazepine use was defined as ?500 defined daily doses 1-5 years prior to the index date. We implemented propensity score (PS) calibration using external information on confounders available from a survey of the Danish population. Two PSs were used: The error-prone PS using register-based confounders and the calibrated PS based on both register- and survey-based confounders, retrieved from the Health Interview Survey.ResultsRegister-based data showed that cancer cases had more diagnoses, higher comorbidity score and more co-medication then population controls. Survey-based data showed lower self-rated health, more self-reported diseases, and more smokers as well as subjects with sedentary lifestyle among benzodiazepine users. By PS calibration, the odds ratio for cancer overall associated with benzodiazepine use decreased from 1.16 to 1.09 (95% confidence interval 1.00-1.19) and for smoking-related cancers from 1.20 to 1.10 (95% confidence interval 1.00-1.21).ConclusionWe conclude that the increased risk observed in the solely register-based study could partly be attributed to unmeasured confounding.

| S-EPMC5651330 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data