Cargando…

Analysis approaches to address treatment nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point-treatment settings: a simulation study

BACKGROUND: Two-stage least square [2SLS] and two-stage residual inclusion [2SRI] are popularly used instrumental variable (IV) methods to address medication nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point treatment settings. These methods require assumptions, e.g., exclusion restriction, although they...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hossain, Md. Belal, Mosquera, Lucy, Karim, Mohammad Ehsanul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8849041/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35172746
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01518-8
_version_ 1784652380669739008
author Hossain, Md. Belal
Mosquera, Lucy
Karim, Mohammad Ehsanul
author_facet Hossain, Md. Belal
Mosquera, Lucy
Karim, Mohammad Ehsanul
author_sort Hossain, Md. Belal
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Two-stage least square [2SLS] and two-stage residual inclusion [2SRI] are popularly used instrumental variable (IV) methods to address medication nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point treatment settings. These methods require assumptions, e.g., exclusion restriction, although they are known to handle unmeasured confounding. The newer IV-method, nonparametric causal bound [NPCB], showed promise in reducing uncertainty compared to usual IV-methods. The inverse probability-weighted per-protocol [IP-weighted PP] method is useful in the same setting but requires different assumptions, e.g., no unmeasured confounding. Although all of these methods are aimed to address the same nonadherence problem, comprehensive simulations to compare performances of them are absent in the literature. METHODS: We performed extensive simulations to compare the performances of the above methods in addressing nonadherence when: (1) exclusion restriction satisfied and no unmeasured confounding, (2) exclusion restriction is met but unmeasured confounding present, and (3) exclusion restriction is violated. Our simulations varied parameters such as, levels of adherence rates, unmeasured confounding, and exclusion restriction violations. Risk differences were estimated, and we compared performances in terms of bias, standard error (SE), mean squared error (MSE), and 95% confidence interval coverage probability. RESULTS: For setting (1), 2SLS and 2SRI have small bias and nominal coverage. IP-weighted PP outperforms these IV-methods in terms of smaller MSE but produces high MSE when nonadherence is very high. For setting (2), IP-weighted-PP generally performs poorly compared to 2SLS and 2SRI in term of bias, and both-stages adjusted IV-methods improve precision than naive IV-methods. For setting (3), IV-methods perform worst in all scenarios, and IP-weighted-PP produces unbiased estimates and small MSE when confounders are adjusted. NPCB produces larger uncertainty bound width in almost all scenarios. We also analyze a two-arm trial to estimate vitamin-A supplementation effect on childhood mortality after addressing nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding finite sample characteristics of these methods will guide future researchers in determining suitable analysis strategies. Since assumptions are different and often untestable for IP-weighted PP and IV methods, we suggest analyzing data using both IP-weighted PP and IV approaches in search of a robust conclusion.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8849041
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88490412022-02-22 Analysis approaches to address treatment nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point-treatment settings: a simulation study Hossain, Md. Belal Mosquera, Lucy Karim, Mohammad Ehsanul BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: Two-stage least square [2SLS] and two-stage residual inclusion [2SRI] are popularly used instrumental variable (IV) methods to address medication nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point treatment settings. These methods require assumptions, e.g., exclusion restriction, although they are known to handle unmeasured confounding. The newer IV-method, nonparametric causal bound [NPCB], showed promise in reducing uncertainty compared to usual IV-methods. The inverse probability-weighted per-protocol [IP-weighted PP] method is useful in the same setting but requires different assumptions, e.g., no unmeasured confounding. Although all of these methods are aimed to address the same nonadherence problem, comprehensive simulations to compare performances of them are absent in the literature. METHODS: We performed extensive simulations to compare the performances of the above methods in addressing nonadherence when: (1) exclusion restriction satisfied and no unmeasured confounding, (2) exclusion restriction is met but unmeasured confounding present, and (3) exclusion restriction is violated. Our simulations varied parameters such as, levels of adherence rates, unmeasured confounding, and exclusion restriction violations. Risk differences were estimated, and we compared performances in terms of bias, standard error (SE), mean squared error (MSE), and 95% confidence interval coverage probability. RESULTS: For setting (1), 2SLS and 2SRI have small bias and nominal coverage. IP-weighted PP outperforms these IV-methods in terms of smaller MSE but produces high MSE when nonadherence is very high. For setting (2), IP-weighted-PP generally performs poorly compared to 2SLS and 2SRI in term of bias, and both-stages adjusted IV-methods improve precision than naive IV-methods. For setting (3), IV-methods perform worst in all scenarios, and IP-weighted-PP produces unbiased estimates and small MSE when confounders are adjusted. NPCB produces larger uncertainty bound width in almost all scenarios. We also analyze a two-arm trial to estimate vitamin-A supplementation effect on childhood mortality after addressing nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding finite sample characteristics of these methods will guide future researchers in determining suitable analysis strategies. Since assumptions are different and often untestable for IP-weighted PP and IV methods, we suggest analyzing data using both IP-weighted PP and IV approaches in search of a robust conclusion. BioMed Central 2022-02-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8849041/ /pubmed/35172746 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01518-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Hossain, Md. Belal
Mosquera, Lucy
Karim, Mohammad Ehsanul
Analysis approaches to address treatment nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point-treatment settings: a simulation study
title Analysis approaches to address treatment nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point-treatment settings: a simulation study
title_full Analysis approaches to address treatment nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point-treatment settings: a simulation study
title_fullStr Analysis approaches to address treatment nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point-treatment settings: a simulation study
title_full_unstemmed Analysis approaches to address treatment nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point-treatment settings: a simulation study
title_short Analysis approaches to address treatment nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point-treatment settings: a simulation study
title_sort analysis approaches to address treatment nonadherence in pragmatic trials with point-treatment settings: a simulation study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8849041/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35172746
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01518-8
work_keys_str_mv AT hossainmdbelal analysisapproachestoaddresstreatmentnonadherenceinpragmatictrialswithpointtreatmentsettingsasimulationstudy
AT mosqueralucy analysisapproachestoaddresstreatmentnonadherenceinpragmatictrialswithpointtreatmentsettingsasimulationstudy
AT karimmohammadehsanul analysisapproachestoaddresstreatmentnonadherenceinpragmatictrialswithpointtreatmentsettingsasimulationstudy