Cargando…

Statistical methods for non-adherence in non-inferiority trials: useful and used? A systematic review

BACKGROUND: In non-inferiority trials with non-adherence to interventions (or non-compliance), intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses are often performed; however, non-random non-adherence generally biases these estimates of efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To identify statistical methods that adjust for...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dodd, Matthew, Fielding, Katherine, Carpenter, James R, Thompson, Jennifer A, Elbourne, Diana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8756274/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35022173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052656
_version_ 1784632535737696256
author Dodd, Matthew
Fielding, Katherine
Carpenter, James R
Thompson, Jennifer A
Elbourne, Diana
author_facet Dodd, Matthew
Fielding, Katherine
Carpenter, James R
Thompson, Jennifer A
Elbourne, Diana
author_sort Dodd, Matthew
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In non-inferiority trials with non-adherence to interventions (or non-compliance), intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses are often performed; however, non-random non-adherence generally biases these estimates of efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To identify statistical methods that adjust for the impact of non-adherence and thus estimate the causal effects of experimental interventions in non-inferiority trials. DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted by searching the Ovid MEDLINE database (31 December 2020) to identify (1) randomised trials with a primary analysis for non-inferiority that applied (or planned to apply) statistical methods to account for the impact of non-adherence to interventions, and (2) methodology papers that described such statistical methods and included a non-inferiority trial application. OUTCOMES: The statistical methods identified, their impacts on non-inferiority conclusions, and their advantages/disadvantages. RESULTS: A total of 24 papers were included (4 protocols, 13 results papers and 7 methodology papers) reporting relevant methods on 26 occasions. The most common were instrumental variable approaches (n=9), including observed adherence as a covariate within a regression model (n=3), and modelling adherence as a time-varying covariate in a time-to-event analysis (n=3). Other methods included rank preserving structural failure time models and inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting. The methods identified in protocols and results papers were more commonly specified as sensitivity analyses (n=13) than primary analyses (n=3). Twelve results papers included an alternative analysis of the same outcome; conclusions regarding non-inferiority were in agreement on six occasions and could not be compared on six occasions (different measures of effect or results not provided in full). CONCLUSIONS: Available statistical methods which attempt to account for the impact of non-adherence to interventions were used infrequently. Therefore, firm inferences about their influence on non-inferiority conclusions could not be drawn. Since intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses do not guarantee unbiased conclusions regarding non-inferiority, the methods identified should be considered for use in sensitivity analyses. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020177458.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8756274
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87562742022-01-26 Statistical methods for non-adherence in non-inferiority trials: useful and used? A systematic review Dodd, Matthew Fielding, Katherine Carpenter, James R Thompson, Jennifer A Elbourne, Diana BMJ Open Research Methods BACKGROUND: In non-inferiority trials with non-adherence to interventions (or non-compliance), intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses are often performed; however, non-random non-adherence generally biases these estimates of efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To identify statistical methods that adjust for the impact of non-adherence and thus estimate the causal effects of experimental interventions in non-inferiority trials. DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted by searching the Ovid MEDLINE database (31 December 2020) to identify (1) randomised trials with a primary analysis for non-inferiority that applied (or planned to apply) statistical methods to account for the impact of non-adherence to interventions, and (2) methodology papers that described such statistical methods and included a non-inferiority trial application. OUTCOMES: The statistical methods identified, their impacts on non-inferiority conclusions, and their advantages/disadvantages. RESULTS: A total of 24 papers were included (4 protocols, 13 results papers and 7 methodology papers) reporting relevant methods on 26 occasions. The most common were instrumental variable approaches (n=9), including observed adherence as a covariate within a regression model (n=3), and modelling adherence as a time-varying covariate in a time-to-event analysis (n=3). Other methods included rank preserving structural failure time models and inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting. The methods identified in protocols and results papers were more commonly specified as sensitivity analyses (n=13) than primary analyses (n=3). Twelve results papers included an alternative analysis of the same outcome; conclusions regarding non-inferiority were in agreement on six occasions and could not be compared on six occasions (different measures of effect or results not provided in full). CONCLUSIONS: Available statistical methods which attempt to account for the impact of non-adherence to interventions were used infrequently. Therefore, firm inferences about their influence on non-inferiority conclusions could not be drawn. Since intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses do not guarantee unbiased conclusions regarding non-inferiority, the methods identified should be considered for use in sensitivity analyses. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020177458. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-01-12 /pmc/articles/PMC8756274/ /pubmed/35022173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052656 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research Methods
Dodd, Matthew
Fielding, Katherine
Carpenter, James R
Thompson, Jennifer A
Elbourne, Diana
Statistical methods for non-adherence in non-inferiority trials: useful and used? A systematic review
title Statistical methods for non-adherence in non-inferiority trials: useful and used? A systematic review
title_full Statistical methods for non-adherence in non-inferiority trials: useful and used? A systematic review
title_fullStr Statistical methods for non-adherence in non-inferiority trials: useful and used? A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Statistical methods for non-adherence in non-inferiority trials: useful and used? A systematic review
title_short Statistical methods for non-adherence in non-inferiority trials: useful and used? A systematic review
title_sort statistical methods for non-adherence in non-inferiority trials: useful and used? a systematic review
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8756274/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35022173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052656
work_keys_str_mv AT doddmatthew statisticalmethodsfornonadherenceinnoninferioritytrialsusefulandusedasystematicreview
AT fieldingkatherine statisticalmethodsfornonadherenceinnoninferioritytrialsusefulandusedasystematicreview
AT carpenterjamesr statisticalmethodsfornonadherenceinnoninferioritytrialsusefulandusedasystematicreview
AT thompsonjennifera statisticalmethodsfornonadherenceinnoninferioritytrialsusefulandusedasystematicreview
AT elbournediana statisticalmethodsfornonadherenceinnoninferioritytrialsusefulandusedasystematicreview