Defining estimands using a mix of strategies to handle intercurrent events in clinical trials

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluation of the efficacy and safety of investigational interventions. If every patient in an RCT were to adhere to the randomized treatment, one could simply analyze the complete data to infer the treatment effect. However, intercurrent events (ICEs) including the use of concomitant medication for unsatisfactory efficacy, treatment discontinuation due to adverse events, or lack of efficacy may lead to interventions that deviate from the original treatment assignment. Therefore, defining the appropriate estimand (the appropriate parameter to be estimated) based on the primary objective of the study is critical prior to determining the statistical analysis method and analyzing the data. The International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) E9 (R1), adopted on November 20, 2019, provided five strategies to define the estimand: treatment policy, hypothetical, composite variable, while on treatment, and principal stratum. In this article, we propose an estimand using a mix of strategies in handling ICEs. This estimand is an average of the “null” treatment difference for those with ICEs potentially related to safety and the treatment difference for the other patients if they would complete the assigned treatments. Two examples from clinical trials evaluating antidiabetes treatments are provided to illustrate the estimation of this proposed estimand and to compare it with the estimates for estimands using hypothetical and treatment policy strategies in handling ICEs.     

Estimating Causal Effects in Trials Involving Multi-Treatment Arms Subject to Non-compliance: A Bayesian framework

Data analysis for randomized trials including multi-treatment arms is often complicated by subjects who do not comply with their treatment assignment. We discuss here methods of estimating treatment efficacy for randomized trials involving multi-treatment arms subject to non-compliance. One treatment effect of interest in the presence of non-compliance is the complier average causal effect (CACE) (Angrist et al. 1996), which is defined as the treatment effect for subjects who would comply regardless of the assigned treatment. Following the idea of principal stratification (Frangakis & Rubin 2002), we define principal compliance (Little et al. 2009) in trials with three treatment arms, extend CACE and define causal estimands of interest in this setting. In addition, we discuss structural assumptions needed for estimation of causal effects and the identifiability problem inherent in this setting from both a Bayesian and a classical statistical perspective. We propose a likelihood-based framework that models potential outcomes in this setting and a Bayes procedure for statistical inference. We compare our method with a method of moments approach proposed by Cheng & Small (2006) using a hypothetical data set, and further illustrate our approach with an application to a behavioral intervention study (Janevic et al. 2003).     

Estimating the causal effects in randomized trials for survival data with a cure fraction and non compliance

We consider causal inference in randomized studies for survival data with a cure fraction and all-or-none treatment non compliance. To describe the causal effects, we consider the complier average causal effect (CACE) and the complier effect on survival probability beyond time t (CESP), where CACE and CESP are defined as the difference of cure rate and non cured subjects’ survival probability between treatment and control groups within the complier class. These estimands depend on the distributions of survival times in treatment and control groups. Given covariates and latent compliance type, we model these distributions with transformation promotion time cure model whose parameters are estimated by maximum likelihood. Both the infinite dimensional parameter in the model and the mixture structure of the problem create some computational difficulties which are overcome by an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm. We show the estimators are consistent and asymptotically normal. Some simulation studies are conducted to assess the finite-sample performance of the proposed approach. We also illustrate our method by analyzing a real data from the Healthy Insurance Plan of Greater New York.     

Two-sample inference procedures under nonproportional hazards

We introduce a new two-sample inference procedure to assess the relative performance of two groups over time. Our model-free method does not assume proportional hazards, making it suitable for scenarios where nonproportional hazards may exist. Our procedure includes a diagnostic tau plot to identify changes in hazard timing and a formal inference procedure. The tau-based measures we develop are clinically meaningful and provide interpretable estimands to summarize the treatment effect over time. Our proposed statistic is a U-statistic and exhibits a martingale structure, allowing us to construct confidence intervals and perform hypothesis testing. Our approach is robust with respect to the censoring distribution. We also demonstrate how our method can be applied for sensitivity analysis in scenarios with missing tail information due to insufficient follow-up. Without censoring, Kendall's tau estimator we propose reduces to the Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney statistic. We evaluate our method using simulations to compare its performance with the restricted mean survival time and log-rank statistics. We also apply our approach to data from several published oncology clinical trials where nonproportional hazards may exist.     

What matters most? Different stakeholder perspectives on estimands for an invented case study in COPD

In drug development, we ask ourselves which population, endpoint and treatment comparison should be investigated. In this context, we also debate what matters most to the different stakeholders that are involved in clinical drug development, for example, patients, physicians, regulators and payers. With the publication of draft ICH E9 addendum on estimands in 2017, we now have a common framework and language to discuss such questions in an informed and transparent way. This has led to the estimand discussion being a key element in study development, including design, analysis and interpretation of a treatment effect. At an invited session at the 2018 PSI annual conference, PSI hosted a role‐play debate where the aim of the session was to mimic a regulatory and payer scientific advice discussion for a COPD drug. Including role‐play views from an industry sponsor, a patient, a regulator and a payer. This paper presents the invented COPD case‐study design and considerations relating to appropriate estimands are discussed by each of the stakeholders from their differing viewpoints with the additional inclusion of a technical (academic) perspective. The rationale for each perspective on approaches for handling intercurrent events is presented, with a key emphasis on the application of while‐on‐treatment and treatment policy estimands in this context. It is increasingly recognised that the treatment effect estimated by the treatment policy approach may not always be of primary clinical interest and may not appropriately communicate to patients the efficacy they can expect if they take the treatment as directed.     

On estimands and the analysis of adverse events in the presence of varying follow‐up times within the benefit assessment of therapies

The analysis of adverse events (AEs) is a key component in the assessment of a drug's safety profile. Inappropriate analysis methods may result in misleading conclusions about a therapy's safety and consequently its benefit‐risk ratio. The statistical analysis of AEs is complicated by the fact that the follow‐up times can vary between the patients included in a clinical trial. This paper takes as its focus the analysis of AE data in the presence of varying follow‐up times within the benefit assessment of therapeutic interventions. Instead of approaching this issue directly and solely from an analysis point of view, we first discuss what should be estimated in the context of safety data, leading to the concept of estimands. Although the current discussion on estimands is mainly related to efficacy evaluation, the concept is applicable to safety endpoints as well. Within the framework of estimands, we present statistical methods for analysing AEs with the focus being on the time to the occurrence of the first AE of a specific type. We give recommendations which estimators should be used for the estimands described. Furthermore, we state practical implications of the analysis of AEs in clinical trials and give an overview of examples across different indications. We also provide a review of current practices of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies with respect to the evaluation of safety data. Finally, we describe problems with meta‐analyses of AE data and sketch possible solutions.     

A structured approach to choosing estimands and estimators in longitudinal clinical trials

An important evolution in the missing data arena has been the recognition of need for clarity in objectives. The objectives of primary focus in clinical trials can often be categorized as assessing efficacy or effectiveness. The present investigation illustrated a structured framework for choosing estimands and estimators when testing investigational drugs to treat the symptoms of chronic illnesses. Key issues were discussed and illustrated using a reanalysis of the confirmatory trials from a new drug application in depression. The primary analysis used a likelihood‐based approach to assess efficacy: mean change to the planned endpoint of the trial assuming patients stayed on drug. Secondarily, effectiveness was assessed using a multiple imputation approach. The imputation model—derived solely from the placebo group—was used to impute missing values for both the drug and placebo groups. Therefore, this so‐called placebo multiple imputation (a.k.a. controlled imputation) approach assumed patients had reduced benefit from the drug after discontinuing it. Results from the example data provided clear evidence of efficacy for the experimental drug and characterized its effectiveness. Data after discontinuation of study medication were not required for these analyses. Given the idiosyncratic nature of drug development, no estimand or approach is universally appropriate. However, the general practice of pairing efficacy and effectiveness estimands may often be useful in understanding the overall risks and benefits of a drug. Controlled imputation approaches, such as placebo multiple imputation, can be a flexible and transparent framework for formulating primary analyses of effectiveness estimands and sensitivity analyses for efficacy estimands. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Estimands in hematologic oncology trials

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, for example, 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.     

Inference and Decision Making for 21st-Century Drug Development and Approval

ABSTRACT

The cost and time of pharmaceutical drug development continue to grow at rates that many say are unsustainable. These trends have enormous impact on what treatments get to patients, when they get them and how they are used. The statistical framework for supporting decisions in regulated clinical development of new medicines has followed a traditional path of frequentist methodology. Trials using hypothesis tests of “no treatment effect” are done routinely, and the p-value < 0.05 is often the determinant of what constitutes a “successful” trial. Many drugs fail in clinical development, adding to the cost of new medicines, and some evidence points blame at the deficiencies of the frequentist paradigm. An unknown number effective medicines may have been abandoned because trials were declared “unsuccessful” due to a p-value exceeding 0.05. Recently, the Bayesian paradigm has shown utility in the clinical drug development process for its probability-based inference. We argue for a Bayesian approach that employs data from other trials as a “prior” for Phase 3 trials so that synthesized evidence across trials can be utilized to compute probability statements that are valuable for understanding the magnitude of treatment effect. Such a Bayesian paradigm provides a promising framework for improving statistical inference and regulatory decision making.     

Analysis of incomplete data under non-random mechanisms: bayesian inference

Inferences are made concerning population proportions when data are not missing at random.Both one sample and two sample situations are considered with examples in clinical trials.The one samplesituation involves the existence of response related incomplete data in a study conducted to make inferences involving the proportion. The two sample problem involves comparing two treatments in clinical trials when there exists dropouts due to both the treatment and the response to the treatment.Bayes procedures are used in estimating parameters of interest and testing hypotheses of interest in these two situations. An ad-hoc approach to the classical inference is presented for each ofthe two situations and compared with the Bayesian approach discussed. To illustrate the theory developed, data from clinical trials of severe head trauma patients at the Medical College of Virginia Head Injury Center from 1984 to 1987 is considered     

A Bayesian nonparametric causal model

Typically, in the practice of causal inference from observational studies, a parametric model is assumed for the joint population density of potential outcomes and treatment assignments, and possibly this is accompanied by the assumption of no hidden bias. However, both assumptions are questionable for real data, the accuracy of causal inference is compromised when the data violates either assumption, and the parametric assumption precludes capturing a more general range of density shapes (e.g., heavier tail behavior and possible multi-modalities). We introduce a flexible, Bayesian nonparametric causal model to provide more accurate causal inferences. The model makes use of a stick-breaking prior, which has the flexibility to capture any multi-modalities, skewness and heavier tail behavior in this joint population density, while accounting for hidden bias. We prove the asymptotic consistency of the posterior distribution of the model, and illustrate our causal model through the analysis of small and large observational data sets.     

Treatment effect quantification for time‐to‐event endpoints–Estimands,analysis strategies,and beyond

A draft addendum to ICH E9 has been released for public consultation in August 2017. The addendum focuses on two topics particularly relevant for randomized confirmatory clinical trials: estimands and sensitivity analyses. The need to amend ICH E9 grew out of the realization of a lack of alignment between the objectives of a clinical trial stated in the protocol and the accompanying quantification of the “treatment effect” reported in a regulatory submission. We embed time‐to‐event endpoints in the estimand framework and discuss how the four estimand attributes described in the addendum apply to time‐to‐event endpoints. We point out that if the proportional hazards assumption is not met, the estimand targeted by the most prevalent methods used to analyze time‐to‐event endpoints, logrank test, and Cox regression depends on the censoring distribution. We discuss for a large randomized clinical trial how the analyses for the primary and secondary endpoints as well as the sensitivity analyses actually performed in the trial can be seen in the context of the addendum. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to do so for a trial with a time‐to‐event endpoint. Questions that remain open with the addendum for time‐to‐event endpoints and beyond are formulated, and recommendations for planning of future trials are given. We hope that this will provide a contribution to developing a common framework based on the final version of the addendum that can be applied to design, protocols, statistical analysis plans, and clinical study reports in the future.     

Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference

Summary.  We attempt to clarify, and suggest how to avoid, several serious misunderstandings about and fallacies of causal inference. These issues concern some of the most fundamental advantages and disadvantages of each basic research design. Problems include improper use of hypothesis tests for covariate balance between the treated and control groups, and the consequences of using randomization, blocking before randomization and matching after assignment of treatment to achieve covariate balance. Applied researchers in a wide range of scientific disciplines seem to fall prey to one or more of these fallacies and as a result make suboptimal design or analysis choices. To clarify these points, we derive a new four-part decomposition of the key estimation errors in making causal inferences. We then show how this decomposition can help scholars from different experimental and observational research traditions to understand better each other's inferential problems and attempted solutions.     

A hierarchical modelling approach to analysing longitudinal data with drop-out and non-compliance, with application to an equivalence trial in paediatric acquired immune deficiency syndrome

Longitudinal clinical trials with long follow-up periods almost invariably suffer from a loss to follow-up and non-compliance with the assigned therapy. An example is protocol 128 of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group, a 5-year equivalency trial comparing reduced dose zidovudine with the standard dose for treatment of paediatric acquired immune deficiency syndrome patients. This study compared responses to treatment by using both clinical and cognitive outcomes. The cognitive outcomes are of particular interest because the effects of human immunodeficiency virus infection of the central nervous system can be more acute in children than in adults. We formulate and apply a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate both the intent-to-treat effect and the average causal effect of reducing the prescribed dose of zidovudine by 50%. The intent-to-treat effect quantifies the causal effect of assigning the lower dose, whereas the average causal effect represents the causal effect of actually taking the lower dose. We adopt a potential outcomes framework where, for each individual, we assume the existence of a different potential outcomes process at each level of time spent on treatment. The joint distribution of the potential outcomes and the time spent on assigned treatment is formulated using a hierarchical model: the potential outcomes distribution is given at the first level, and dependence between the outcomes and time on treatment is specified at the second level by linking the time on treatment to subject-specific effects that characterize the potential outcomes processes. Several distributional and structural assumptions are used to identify the model from observed data, and these are described in detail. A detailed analysis of AIDS Clinical Trials Group protocol 128 is given; inference about both the intent-to-treat effect and average causal effect indicate a high probability of dose equivalence with respect to cognitive functioning.     

Using information on realized effects to determine prospective causal effects

The potential outcomes approach to causal inference postulates that each individual has a number of possibly latent outcomes, each of which would be observed under a different treatment. For any individual, some of these outcomes will be unobservable or counterfactual. Information about post-treatment characteristics sometimes allows statements about what would have happened if an individual or group with these characteristics had received a different treatment. These are statements about the realized effects of the treatment. Determining the likely effect of an intervention before making a decision involves inference about effects in populations defined only by characteristics observed before decisions about treatment are made. Information on realized effects can tighten bounds on these prospectively defined measures of the intervention effect. We derive formulae for the bounds and their sampling variances and illustrate these points with data from a hypothetical study of the efficacy of screening mammography.     

THE POTENTIAL FOR BIAS IN PRINCIPAL CAUSAL EFFECT ESTIMATION WHEN TREATMENT RECEIVED DEPENDS ON A KEY COVARIATE

Motivated by a potential-outcomes perspective, the idea of principal stratification has been widely recognized for its relevance in settings susceptible to posttreatment selection bias such as randomized clinical trials where treatment received can differ from treatment assigned. In one such setting, we address subtleties involved in inference for causal effects when using a key covariate to predict membership in latent principal strata. We show that when treatment received can differ from treatment assigned in both study arms, incorporating a stratum-predictive covariate can make estimates of the "complier average causal effect" (CACE) derive from observations in the two treatment arms with different covariate distributions. Adopting a Bayesian perspective and using Markov chain Monte Carlo for computation, we develop posterior checks that characterize the extent to which incorporating the pretreatment covariate endangers estimation of the CACE. We apply the method to analyze a clinical trial comparing two treatments for jaw fractures in which the study protocol allowed surgeons to overrule both possible randomized treatment assignments based on their clinical judgment and the data contained a key covariate (injury severity) predictive of treatment received.