Cargando…

Improved two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: g-estimation to address time-dependent confounding

In oncology trials, control group patients often switch onto the experimental treatment during follow-up, usually after disease progression. In this case, an intention-to-treat analysis will not address the policy question of interest – that of whether the new treatment represents an effective and c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Latimer, NR, White, IR, Tilling, K, Siebert, U
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7436445/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32223524
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0962280220912524
_version_ 1783572527534047232
author Latimer, NR
White, IR
Tilling, K
Siebert, U
author_facet Latimer, NR
White, IR
Tilling, K
Siebert, U
author_sort Latimer, NR
collection PubMed
description In oncology trials, control group patients often switch onto the experimental treatment during follow-up, usually after disease progression. In this case, an intention-to-treat analysis will not address the policy question of interest – that of whether the new treatment represents an effective and cost-effective use of health care resources, compared to the standard treatment. Rank preserving structural failure time models (RPSFTM), inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW) and two-stage estimation (TSE) have often been used to adjust for switching to inform treatment reimbursement policy decisions. TSE has been applied using a simple approach (TSEsimp), assuming no time-dependent confounding between the time of disease progression and the time of switch. This is problematic if there is a delay between progression and switch. In this paper we introduce TSEgest, which uses structural nested models and g-estimation to account for time-dependent confounding, and compare it to TSEsimp, RPSFTM and IPCW. We simulated scenarios where control group patients could switch onto the experimental treatment with and without time-dependent confounding being present. We varied switching proportions, treatment effects and censoring proportions. We assessed adjustment methods according to their estimation of control group restricted mean survival times that would have been observed in the absence of switching. All methods performed well in scenarios with no time-dependent confounding. TSEgest and RPSFTM continued to perform well in scenarios with time-dependent confounding, but TSEsimp resulted in substantial bias. IPCW also performed well in scenarios with time-dependent confounding, except when inverse probability weights were high in relation to the size of the group being subjected to weighting, which occurred when there was a combination of modest sample size and high switching proportions. TSEgest represents a useful addition to the collection of methods that may be used to adjust for treatment switching in trials in order to address policy-relevant questions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7436445
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74364452020-09-04 Improved two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: g-estimation to address time-dependent confounding Latimer, NR White, IR Tilling, K Siebert, U Stat Methods Med Res Articles In oncology trials, control group patients often switch onto the experimental treatment during follow-up, usually after disease progression. In this case, an intention-to-treat analysis will not address the policy question of interest – that of whether the new treatment represents an effective and cost-effective use of health care resources, compared to the standard treatment. Rank preserving structural failure time models (RPSFTM), inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW) and two-stage estimation (TSE) have often been used to adjust for switching to inform treatment reimbursement policy decisions. TSE has been applied using a simple approach (TSEsimp), assuming no time-dependent confounding between the time of disease progression and the time of switch. This is problematic if there is a delay between progression and switch. In this paper we introduce TSEgest, which uses structural nested models and g-estimation to account for time-dependent confounding, and compare it to TSEsimp, RPSFTM and IPCW. We simulated scenarios where control group patients could switch onto the experimental treatment with and without time-dependent confounding being present. We varied switching proportions, treatment effects and censoring proportions. We assessed adjustment methods according to their estimation of control group restricted mean survival times that would have been observed in the absence of switching. All methods performed well in scenarios with no time-dependent confounding. TSEgest and RPSFTM continued to perform well in scenarios with time-dependent confounding, but TSEsimp resulted in substantial bias. IPCW also performed well in scenarios with time-dependent confounding, except when inverse probability weights were high in relation to the size of the group being subjected to weighting, which occurred when there was a combination of modest sample size and high switching proportions. TSEgest represents a useful addition to the collection of methods that may be used to adjust for treatment switching in trials in order to address policy-relevant questions. SAGE Publications 2020-03-30 2020-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7436445/ /pubmed/32223524 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0962280220912524 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Articles
Latimer, NR
White, IR
Tilling, K
Siebert, U
Improved two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: g-estimation to address time-dependent confounding
title Improved two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: g-estimation to address time-dependent confounding
title_full Improved two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: g-estimation to address time-dependent confounding
title_fullStr Improved two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: g-estimation to address time-dependent confounding
title_full_unstemmed Improved two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: g-estimation to address time-dependent confounding
title_short Improved two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: g-estimation to address time-dependent confounding
title_sort improved two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: g-estimation to address time-dependent confounding
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7436445/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32223524
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0962280220912524
work_keys_str_mv AT latimernr improvedtwostageestimationtoadjustfortreatmentswitchinginrandomisedtrialsgestimationtoaddresstimedependentconfounding
AT whiteir improvedtwostageestimationtoadjustfortreatmentswitchinginrandomisedtrialsgestimationtoaddresstimedependentconfounding
AT tillingk improvedtwostageestimationtoadjustfortreatmentswitchinginrandomisedtrialsgestimationtoaddresstimedependentconfounding
AT siebertu improvedtwostageestimationtoadjustfortreatmentswitchinginrandomisedtrialsgestimationtoaddresstimedependentconfounding