The attributable estimand: A new approach to account for intercurrent events

The term “intercurrent events” has recently been used to describe events in clinical trials that may complicate the definition and calculation of the treatment effect estimand. This paper focuses on the use of an attributable estimand to address intercurrent events. Those events that are considered to be adversely related to randomized treatment (eg, discontinuation due to adverse events or lack of efficacy) are considered attributable and handled with a composite estimand strategy, while a hypothetical estimand strategy is used for intercurrent events not considered to be related to randomized treatment (eg, unrelated adverse events). We explore several options for how to implement this approach and compare them to hypothetical “efficacy” and treatment policy estimand strategies through a series of simulation studies whose design is inspired by recent trials in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and we illustrate through an analysis of a recently completed COPD trial.     

Estimands in practice: Bridging the gap between study objectives and statistical analysis

The International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) guideline E9 Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials (1) was issued in 1998. In October 2014, an addendum to ICH E9 was proposed on statistical principles relating to estimands and sensitivity analyses. The final version of the addendum to ICH E9 (R1) (2) was issued in November 2019. This virtual edition of Pharmaceutical Statistics takes a closer look at some of the progress that has been made since 2018 when implementing the estimand framework within clinical research. The articles discussed in this virtual issue are not new, but a compilation from previous issues. This specific article will act as a refresher for those not familiar with the topic and discuss the ABCs of estimands and their proposed deployment for improving the quality of clinical research. An overview of the more recent Pharmaceutical Statistics articles on estimands will be provided, signifying areas where progress have been made. The articles should be considered as contributions to the ongoing discussions rather than the final word. Finally, a personal perspective on the estimand success story and remaining challenges with proposed solutions will be discussed.     

Estimand framework: Are we asking the right questions? A case study in the solid tumor setting

The estimand framework requires a precise definition of the clinical question of interest (the estimand) as different ways of accounting for “intercurrent” events post randomization may result in different scientific questions. The initiation of subsequent therapy is common in oncology clinical trials and is considered an intercurrent event if the start of such therapy occurs prior to a recurrence or progression event. Three possible ways to account for this intercurrent event in the analysis are to censor at initiation, consider recurrence or progression events (including death) that occur before and after the initiation of subsequent therapy, or consider the start of subsequent therapy as an event in and of itself. The new estimand framework clarifies that these analyses address different questions (“does the drug delay recurrence if no patient had received subsequent therapy?” vs “does the drug delay recurrence with or without subsequent therapy?” vs “does the drug delay recurrence or start of subsequent therapy?”). The framework facilitates discussions during clinical trial planning and design to ensure alignment between the key question of interest, the analysis, and interpretation. This article is a result of a cross-industry collaboration to connect the International Council for Harmonisation E9 addendum concepts to applications. Data from previously reported randomized phase 3 studies in the renal cell carcinoma setting are used to consider common intercurrent events in solid tumor studies, and to illustrate different scientific questions and the consequences of the estimand choice for study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation.     

Identifying treatment effects using trimmed means when data are missing not at random

Patients often discontinue from a clinical trial because their health condition is not improving or they cannot tolerate the assigned treatment. Consequently, the observed clinical outcomes in the trial are likely better on average than if every patient had completed the trial. If these differences between trial completers and non-completers cannot be explained by the observed data, then the study outcomes are missing not at random (MNAR). One way to overcome this problem—the trimmed means approach for missing data due to study discontinuation—sets missing values as the worst observed outcome and then trims away a fraction of the distribution from each treatment arm before calculating differences in treatment efficacy (Permutt T, Li F. Trimmed means for symptom trials with dropouts. Pharm Stat. 2017;16(1):20–28). In this paper, we derive sufficient and necessary conditions for when this approach can identify the average population treatment effect. Simulation studies show the trimmed means approach's ability to effectively estimate treatment efficacy when data are MNAR and missingness due to study discontinuation is strongly associated with an unfavorable outcome, but trimmed means fail when data are missing at random. If the reasons for study discontinuation in a clinical trial are known, analysts can improve estimates with a combination of multiple imputation and the trimmed means approach when the assumptions of each hold. We compare the methodology to existing approaches using data from a clinical trial for chronic pain. An R package trim implements the method. When the assumptions are justifiable, using trimmed means can help identify treatment effects notwithstanding MNAR data.     

Estimands and inference in cluster‐randomized vaccine trials

Cluster‐randomized trials are often conducted to assess vaccine effects. Defining estimands of interest before conducting a trial is integral to the alignment between a study's objectives and the data to be collected and analyzed. This paper considers estimands and estimators for overall, indirect, and total vaccine effects in trials, where clusters of individuals are randomized to vaccine or control. The scenario is considered where individuals self‐select whether to participate in the trial, and the outcome of interest is measured on all individuals in each cluster. Unlike the overall, indirect, and total effects, the direct effect of vaccination is shown in general not to be estimable without further assumptions, such as no unmeasured confounding. An illustrative example motivated by a cluster‐randomized typhoid vaccine trial is provided.     

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.     

An evaluation of the trimmed mean approach in clinical trials with dropout

The trimmed mean is a method of dealing with patient dropout in clinical trials that considers early discontinuation of treatment a bad outcome rather than leading to missing data. The present investigation is the first comprehensive assessment of the approach across a broad set of simulated clinical trial scenarios. In the trimmed mean approach, all patients who discontinue treatment prior to the primary endpoint are excluded from analysis by trimming an equal percentage of bad outcomes from each treatment arm. The untrimmed values are used to calculated means or mean changes. An explicit intent of trimming is to favor the group with lower dropout because having more completers is a beneficial effect of the drug, or conversely, higher dropout is a bad effect. In the simulation study, difference between treatments estimated from trimmed means was greater than the corresponding effects estimated from untrimmed means when dropout favored the experimental group, and vice versa. The trimmed mean estimates a unique estimand. Therefore, comparisons with other methods are difficult to interpret and the utility of the trimmed mean hinges on the reasonableness of its assumptions: dropout is an equally bad outcome in all patients, and adherence decisions in the trial are sufficiently similar to clinical practice in order to generalize the results. Trimming might be applicable to other inter‐current events such as switching to or adding rescue medicine. Given the well‐known biases in some methods that estimate effectiveness, such as baseline observation carried forward and non‐responder imputation, the trimmed mean may be a useful alternative when its assumptions are justifiable.