Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userHypothetical estimands in clinical trials: a unification of causal inference and missing data methods
103
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Camila Olarte Parra
Publication date
2021
fields
Mathematical Statistics
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The ICH E9 addendum introduces the term intercurrent event to refer to events that happen after randomisation and that can either preclude observation of the outcome of interest or affect its interpretation. It proposes five strategies for handling intercurrent events to form an estimand but does not suggest statistical methods for estimation. In this paper we focus on the hypothetical strategy, where the treatment effect is defined under the hypothetical scenario in which the intercurrent event is prevented. For its estimation, we consider causal inference and missing data methods. We establish that certain causal inference estimators are identical to certain missing data estimators. These links may help those familiar with one set of methods but not the other. Moreover, using potential outcome notation allows us to state more clearly the assumptions on which missing data methods rely to estimate hypothetical estimands. This helps to indicate whether estimating a hypothetical estimand is reasonable, and what data should be used in the analysis. We show that hypothetical estimands can be estimated by exploiting data after intercurrent event occurrence, which is typically not used. We also present Monte Carlo simulations that illustrate the implementation and performance of the methods in different settings.
rate research
Read More
With increasing data availability, causal treatment effects can be evaluated across different datasets, both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. RCTs isolate the effect of the treatment from that of unwanted (confounding) co-occurring effects. But they may struggle with inclusion biases, and thus lack external validity. On the other hand, large observational samples are often more representative of the target population but can conflate confounding effects with the treatment of interest. In this paper, we review the growing literature on methods for causal inference on combined RCTs and observational studies, striving for the best of both worlds. We first discuss identification and estimation methods that improve generalizability of RCTs using the representativeness of observational data. Classical estimators include weighting, difference between conditional outcome models, and doubly robust estimators. We then discuss methods that combine RCTs and observational data to improve (conditional) average treatment effect estimation, handling possible unmeasured confounding in the observational data. We also connect and contrast works developed in both the potential outcomes framework and the structural causal model framework. Finally, we compare the main methods using a simulation study and real world data to analyze the effect of tranexamic acid on the mortality rate in major trauma patients. Code to implement many of the methods is provided.
In cluster randomized trials, patients are recruited after clusters are randomized, and the recruiters and patients may not be blinded to the assignment. This often leads to differential recruitment and systematic differences in baseline characteristics of the recruited patients between intervention and control arms, inducing post-randomization selection bias. We aim to rigorously define causal estimands in the presence of selection bias. We elucidate the conditions under which standard covariate adjustment methods can validly estimate these estimands. We further discuss the additional data and assumptions necessary for estimating causal effects when such conditions are not met. Adopting the principal stratification framework in causal inference, we clarify there are two average treatment effect (ATE) estimands in cluster randomized trials: one for the overall population and one for the recruited population. We derive the analytical formula of the two estimands in terms of principal-stratum-specific causal effects. Further, using simulation studies, we assess the empirical performance of the multivariable regression adjustment method under different data generating processes leading to selection bias. When treatment effects are heterogeneous across principal strata, the ATE on the overall population generally differs from the ATE on the recruited population. A naive intention-to-treat analysis of the recruited sample leads to biased estimates of both ATEs. In the presence of post-randomization selection and without additional data on the non-recruited subjects, the ATE on the recruited population is estimable only when the treatment effects are homogenous between principal strata, and the ATE on the overall population is generally not estimable. The extent to which covariate adjustment can remove selection bias depends on the degree of effect heterogeneity across principal strata.
A central goal in designing clinical trials is to find the test that maximizes power (or equivalently minimizes required sample size) for finding a true research hypothesis subject to the constraint of type I error. When there is more than one test, such as in clinical trials with multiple endpoints, the issues of optimal design and optimal policies become more complex. In this paper we address the question of how such optimal tests should be defined and how they can be found. We review different notions of power and how they relate to study goals, and also consider the requirements of type I error control and the nature of the policies. This leads us to formulate the optimal policy problem as an explicit optimization problem with objective and constraints which describe its specific desiderata. We describe a complete solution for deriving optimal policies for two hypotheses, which have desired monotonicity properties, and are computationally simple. For some of the optimization formulations this yields optimal policies that are identical to existing policies, such as Hommels procedure or the procedure of Bittman et al. (2009), while for others it yields completely novel and more powerful policies than existing ones. We demonstrate the nature of our novel policies and their improved power extensively in simulation and on the APEX study (Cohen et al., 2016).
The estimand framework included in the addendum to the ICH E9 guideline facilitates discussions to ensure alignment between the key question of interest, the analysis, and interpretation. Therapeutic knowledge and drug mechanism play a crucial role in determining the strategy and defining the estimand for clinical trial designs. Clinical trials in patients with hematological malignancies often present unique challenges for trial design due to complexity of treatment options and existence of potential curative but highly risky procedures, e.g. stem cell transplant or treatment sequence across different phases (induction, consolidation, maintenance). Here, we illustrate how to apply the estimand framework in hematological clinical trials and how the estimand framework can address potential difficulties in trial result interpretation. This paper is a result of a cross-industry collaboration to connect the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) E9 addendum concepts to applications. Three randomized phase 3 trials will be used to consider common challenges including intercurrent events in hematologic oncology trials to illustrate different scientific questions and the consequences of the estimand choice for trial design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Template language for describing estimand in both study protocols and statistical analysis plans is suggested for statisticians reference.
Use of historical data and real-world evidence holds great potential to improve the efficiency of clinical trials. One major challenge is how to effectively borrow information from historical data while maintaining a reasonable type I error. We propose the elastic prior approach to address this challenge and achieve dynamic information borrowing. Unlike existing approaches, this method proactively controls the behavior of dynamic information borrowing and type I errors by incorporating a well-known concept of clinically meaningful difference through an elastic function, defined as a monotonic function of a congruence measure between historical data and trial data. The elastic function is constructed to satisfy a set of information-borrowing constraints prespecified by researchers or regulatory agencies, such that the prior will borrow information when historical and trial data are congruent, but refrain from information borrowing when historical and trial data are incongruent. In doing so, the elastic prior improves power and reduces the risk of data dredging and bias. The elastic prior is information borrowing consistent, i.e. asymptotically controls type I and II errors at the nominal values when historical data and trial data are not congruent, a unique characteristics of the elastic prior approach. Our simulation study that evaluates the finite sample characteristic confirms that, compared to existing methods, the elastic prior has better type I error control and yields competitive or higher power.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
