Abstract
ABSTRACT We consider estimation in a randomised placebo-controlled or standard-of-care-controlled drug trial with quantitative outcome, where participants who discontinue an investigational treatment are not followed up thereafter, and the estimand follows a treatment policy strategy for handling treatment discontinuation. Our approach is also useful in situations where participants take rescue medication or a subsequent line of therapy and the estimand follows a hypothetical strategy to estimate the effect of initially randomised treatment in the absence of rescue or other active treatment. Carpenter et al proposed reference-based imputation methods which use a reference arm to inform the distribution of post-discontinuation outcomes and hence to inform an imputation model. However, the reference-based imputation methods were not formally justified. We present a causal model which makes an explicit assumption in a potential outcomes framework about the maintained causal effect of treatment after discontinuation. We use mathematical argument and a simulation study to show that the “jump to reference”, “copy reference” and “copy increments in reference” reference-based imputation methods, with the control arm as the reference arm, are special cases of the causal model with specific assumptions about the causal treatment effect. We also show that the causal model provides a flexible and transparent framework for a tipping point sensitivity analysis in which we vary the assumptions made about the causal effect of discontinued treatment. We illustrate the approach with data from two longitudinal clinical trials.
Highlights
Missing outcome data represent a major threat to the validity of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and appropriate analysis methods have been much discussed
Comparing panels B and C shows that the reference-based imputation” (RBI) estimates with variancecovariance matrix drawn from the control arm agree with specific cases of the causal model estimates with β1ð1Þ 1⁄4 β1ð0Þ, and the RBI estimates with variance-covariance matrix drawn from the active arm agree with specific cases of the causal model estimates with β1ð1Þ 1⁄4 β1ð2Þ
We have considered longitudinal RCTs with quantitative outcomes in which participants who discontinue an active treatment are not followed up thereafter, but are assumed to receive a treatment similar to the control treatment
Summary
Missing outcome data represent a major threat to the validity of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and appropriate analysis methods have been much discussed. An influential report showed that different analysis methods may target different estimands (different measures of treatment effect) and argued that specification of the estimand is an important part of trial design and should inform trial analysis and reporting (National Research Council 2010). We consider two types of estimand considered by the National Research Council (2010): (E1) difference in outcome improvement at the planned endpoint if all participants had tolerated or adhered to trial protocol; (E2) difference in outcome improvement at the planned endpoint for all Supplemental data for this article can be accessed publisher’ website. Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have