The use of randomisation-based efficacy estimators in non-inferiority trials

David Gillespie, Daniel Farewell, Peter Barrett-Lee, Angela Casbard, Anthony Barney Hawthorne, Chris Hurt, Nick Murray, Chris Probert, Rachel Stenson, Kerenza Hood, David Gillespie, Daniel Farewell, Peter Barrett-Lee, Angela Casbard, Anthony Barney Hawthorne, Chris Hurt, Nick Murray, Chris Probert, Rachel Stenson, Kerenza Hood

Abstract

Background: In a non-inferiority (NI) trial, analysis based on the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle is anti-conservative, so current guidelines recommend analysing on a per-protocol (PP) population in addition. However, PP analysis relies on the often implausible assumption of no confounders. Randomisation-based efficacy estimators (RBEEs) allow for treatment non-adherence while maintaining a comparison of randomised groups. Fischer et al. have developed an approach for estimating RBEEs in randomised trials with two active treatments, a common feature of NI trials. The aim of this paper was to demonstrate the use of RBEEs in NI trials using this approach, and to appraise the feasibility of these estimators as the primary analysis in NI trials.

Methods: Two NI trials were used. One comparing two different dosing regimens for the maintenance of remission in people with ulcerative colitis (CODA), and the other comparing an orally administered treatment to an intravenously administered treatment in preventing skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (ZICE). Variables that predicted adherence in each of the trial arms, and were also independent of outcome, were sought in each of the studies. Structural mean models (SMMs) were fitted that conditioned on these variables, and the point estimates and confidence intervals compared to that found in the corresponding ITT and PP analyses.

Results: In the CODA study, no variables were found that differentially predicted treatment adherence while remaining independent of outcome. The SMM, using standard methodology, moved the point estimate closer to 0 (no difference between arms) compared to the ITT and PP analyses, but the confidence interval was still within the NI margin, indicating that the conclusions drawn would remain the same. In the ZICE study, cognitive functioning as measured by the corresponding domain of the QLQ-C30, and use of chemotherapy at baseline were both differentially associated with adherence while remaining independent of outcome. However, while the SMM again moved the point estimate closer to 0, the confidence interval was wide, overlapping with any NI margin that could be justified.

Conclusion: Deriving RBEEs in NI trials with two active treatments can provide a randomisation-respecting estimate of treatment efficacy that accounts for treatment adherence, is straightforward to implement, but requires thorough planning during the design stage of the study to ensure that strong baseline predictors of treatment are captured. Extension of the approach to handle nonlinear outcome variables is also required.

Trial registration: The CODA study: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00708656 . Registered on 8 April 2008. The ZICE study trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00326820 . Registered on 16 May 2006.

Keywords: Efficacy; Intention-to-treat; Non-inferiority; Per-protocol; Structural mean models; Treatment non-adherence.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Causal Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) illustrating using randomisation as an instrument to derive a randomisation-based efficacy estimate
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flow diagram describing data available for each type of analysis in the Colitis Once Daily Asacol (CODA) trial
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot of the difference in relapse rates in the Colitis Once Daily Asacol (CODA) trial for various analysis sets
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Flow diagram describing data available for each type of analysis in the Zoledronate versus Ibandronate Comparative Evaluation (ZICE) trial
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plot of the difference in the proportion with skeletal-related event (SRE) in the first 12 months in the Zoledronate versus Ibandronate Comparative Evaluation (ZICE) trial for various analysis sets

References

    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux P, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):e1–e37. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004.
    1. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ, Group C. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 2006;295(10):1152–60. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.10.1152.
    1. Lewis J, Machin D. Intention to treat—who should use ITT? Br J Cancer. 1993;68(4):647. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1993.402.
    1. Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis J, Ebbutt A. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. BMJ. 1996;313(7048):36. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7048.36.
    1. ICH Steering Committee . Statistical principles for clinical trials (E9) Geneva, Switzerland: International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use; 1998.
    1. Lesaffre E. Superiority, equivalence, and non-inferiority trials. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2008;66(2):150–4.
    1. Lewis JA. Statistical principles for clinical trials (ICH E9): an introductory note on an international guideline. Stat Med. 1999;18(15):1903–42. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990815)18:15<1903::AID-SIM188>;2-F.
    1. White IR. Uses and limitations of randomization-based efficacy estimators. Stat Methods Med Res. 2005;14(4):327–47. doi: 10.1191/0962280205sm406oa.
    1. Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(5):487–97. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra050100.
    1. Fischer K, Goetghebeur E, Vrijens B, White IR. A structural mean model to allow for noncompliance in a randomized trial comparing 2 active treatments. Biostatistics. 2011;12(2):247–57. doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxq053.
    1. Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Intention-to-treat principle. Can Med Assoc J. 2001;165(10):1339–41.
    1. Singal AG, Higgins PD, Waljee AK. A primer on effectiveness and efficacy trials. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2014;5(1):e45. doi: 10.1038/ctg.2013.13.
    1. Frangakis CE, Rubin DB. Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics. 2002;58(1):21–9. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2002.00021.x.
    1. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996;91(434):444–55. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1996.10476902.
    1. Hawthorne AB, Stenson R, Gillespie D, Swarbrick ET, Dhar A, Kapur KC, Hood K, Probert CS. One‐year investigator‐blind randomized multicenter trial comparing Asacol 2.4 g once daily with 800 mg three times daily for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2012;18(10):1885–93. doi: 10.1002/ibd.21938.
    1. Gillespie D, Hood K, Farewell D, Stenson R, Probert C, Hawthorne AB. Electronic monitoring of medication adherence in a 1-year clinical study of 2 dosing regimens of mesalazine for adults in remission with ulcerative colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014;20(1):82–91. doi: 10.1097/01.MIB.0000437500.60546.2a.
    1. Barrett-Lee P, Casbard A, Abraham J, Hood K, Coleman R, Simmonds P, Timmins H, Wheatley D, Grieve R, Griffiths G. Oral ibandronic acid versus intravenous zoledronic acid in treatment of bone metastases from breast cancer: a randomised, open label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(1):114–22. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70539-4.
    1. Cheung YB. A modified least-squares regression approach to the estimation of risk difference. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166(11):1337–44. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwm223.
    1. Aikens JE, Nease DE, Nau DP, Klinkman MS, Schwenk TL. Adherence to maintenance-phase antidepressant medication as a function of patient beliefs about medication. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(1):23–30. doi: 10.1370/afm.238.
    1. Liu H, Golin CE, Miller LG, Hays RD, Beck CK, Sanandaji S, Christian J, Maldonado T, Duran D, Kaplan AH. A comparison study of multiple measures of adherence to HIV protease inhibitors. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(10):968–77. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-134-10-200105150-00011.
    1. Lu M, Safren SA, Skolnik PR, Rogers WH, Coady W, Hardy H, Wilson IB. Optimal recall period and response task for self-reported HIV medication adherence. AIDS Behav. 2008;12(1):86–94. doi: 10.1007/s10461-007-9261-4.
    1. Hernán MA, Robins JM. Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist’s dream? Epidemiology. 2006;17(4):360–72. doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000222409.00878.37.
    1. Bell ML, Fiero M, Horton NJ, Hsu C-H. Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-1.
    1. Vansteelandt S, Goetghebeur E. Causal inference with generalized structural mean models. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Stat Methodol) 2003;65(4):817–35. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-7412.2003.00417.x.
    1. Wiles N, Fischer K, Cowen P, Nutt D, Peters T, Lewis G, White I. Allowing for non-adherence to treatment in a randomized controlled trial of two antidepressants (citalopram versus reboxetine): an example from the GENPOD trial. Psychol Med. 2014;44(13):2855–66. doi: 10.1017/S0033291714000221.
    1. Taylor TH, Mecchella JN, Larson RJ, Kerin KD, MacKenzie TA. Initiation of allopurinol at first medical contact for acute attacks of gout: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Med. 2012;125(11):1126–34. e7. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.05.025.
    1. Anderson PK, Gill RD. Cox’s regression model for counting processes: a large sample study. Ann Stat. 1982;10:1100–20. doi: 10.1214/aos/1176345976.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する