Sensitivity analysis for principal ignorability violation in estimating complier and noncomplier average causal effects

An important strategy for identifying principal causal effects (popular estimands in settings with noncompliance) is to invoke the principal ignorability (PI) assumption. As PI is untestable, it is important to gauge how sensitive effect estimates are to its violation. We focus on this task for the common one-sided noncompliance setting where there are two principal strata, compliers and noncompliers. Under PI, compliers and noncompliers share the same outcome-mean-given-covariates function under the control condition. For sensitivity analysis, we allow this function to differ between compliers and noncompliers in several ways, indexed by an odds ratio, a generalized odds ratio, a mean ratio, or a standardized mean difference sensitivity parameter. We tailor sensitivity analysis techniques (with any sensitivity parameter choice) to several types of PI-based main analysis methods, including outcome regression, influence function (IF) based and weighting methods. We discuss range selection for the sensitivity parameter. We illustrate the sensitivity analyses with several outcome types from the JOBS II study. This application estimates nuisance functions parametrically - for simplicity and accessibility. In addition, we establish rate conditions on nonparametric nuisance estimation for IF-based estimators to be asymptotically normal - with a view to inform nonparametric inference.

Principal quantile treatment effect estimation using principal scores

Intercurrent events and estimands play a key role in defining the treatment effects of interest precisely. Sometimes the median or other quantiles of outcomes in a principal stratum according to potential occurrence of intercurrent events are of interest in randomized clinical trials. Naïve analyses such as those based on the observed occurrence of the intercurrent events lead to biased results. Therefore, we propose principal quantile treatment effect estimators that can nonparametrically estimate the distribution of potential outcomes by principal score weighting without relying on the exclusion restriction assumption. Our simulation studies show that the proposed method works in situations where the median or quantiles may be regarded as the preferred population-level summary over the mean. We illustrate our proposed method by using data from a randomized controlled trial conducted on patients with nonerosive reflux disease.

Identification and estimation of causal effects in the presence of confounded principal strata

Principal stratification has become a popular tool to address a broad class of causal inference questions, particularly in dealing with non-compliance and truncation by death problems. The causal effects within principal strata, which are determined by joint potential values of the intermediate variable, also known as the principal causal effects, are often of interest in these studies. The analysis of principal causal effects from observational studies mostly relies on the ignorability assumption of treatment assignment, which requires practitioners to accurately measure as many covariates as possible so that all potential sources of confounders are captured. However, in practice, collecting all potential confounding factors can be challenging and costly, rendering the ignorability assumption questionable. In this paper, we consider the identification and estimation of causal effects when treatment and principal stratification are confounded by unmeasured confounding. Specifically, we establish the nonparametric identification of principal causal effects using a pair of negative controls to mitigate unmeasured confounding, requiring they have no direct effect on the outcome variable. We also provide an estimation method for principal causal effects. Extensive simulations and a leukemia study are employed for illustration.

Proportion of treatment effect explained: An overview of interpretations

The selection of the primary endpoint in a clinical trial plays a critical role in determining the trial's success. Ideally, the primary endpoint is the clinically most relevant outcome, also termed the true endpoint. However, practical considerations, like extended follow-up, may complicate this choice, prompting the proposal to replace the true endpoint with so-called surrogate endpoints. Evaluating the validity of these surrogate endpoints is crucial, and a popular evaluation framework is based on the proportion of treatment effect explained (PTE). While methodological advancements in this area have focused primarily on estimation methods, interpretation remains a challenge hindering the practical use of the PTE. We review various ways to interpret the PTE. These interpretations-two causal and one non-causal-reveal connections between the PTE principal surrogacy, causal mediation analysis, and the prediction of trial-level treatment effects. A common limitation across these interpretations is the reliance on unverifiable assumptions. As such, we argue that the PTE is only meaningful when researchers are willing to make very strong assumptions. These challenges are also illustrated in an analysis of three hypothetical vaccine trials.

Multiply robust estimation of principal causal effects with noncompliance and survival outcomes

Treatment noncompliance and censoring are two common complications in clinical trials. Motivated by the ADAPTABLE pragmatic clinical trial, we develop methods for assessing treatment effects in the presence of treatment noncompliance with a right-censored survival outcome. We classify the participants into principal strata, defined by their joint potential compliance status under treatment and control. We propose a multiply robust estimator for the causal effects on the survival probability scale within each principal stratum. This estimator is consistent even if one, sometimes two, of the four working models-on the treatment assignment, the principal strata, censoring, and the outcome-is misspecified. A sensitivity analysis strategy is developed to address violations of key identification assumptions, the principal ignorability and monotonicity. We apply the proposed approach to the ADAPTABLE trial to study the causal effect of taking low- versus high-dosage aspirin on all-cause mortality and hospitalization from cardiovascular diseases.

Interpretations of Studies on SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Post-acute COVID-19 Sequelae

This article discusses causal interpretations of epidemiologic studies of the effects of vaccination on sequelae after acute severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. To date, researchers have tried to answer several different research questions on this topic. While some studies assessed the impact of postinfection vaccination on the presence of or recovery from post-acute coronavirus disease 2019 syndrome, others quantified the association between preinfection vaccination and postacute sequelae conditional on becoming infected. However, the latter analysis does not have a causal interpretation, except under the principal stratification framework-that is, this comparison can only be interpreted as causal for a nondiscernible stratum of the population. As the epidemiology of coronavirus disease 2019 is now nearly entirely dominated by reinfections, including in vaccinated individuals, and possibly caused by different Omicron subvariants, it has become even more important to design studies on the effects of vaccination on postacute sequelae that address precise causal questions and quantify effects corresponding to implementable interventions.

Identification of complier and noncomplier average causal effects in the presence of latent missing-at-random (LMAR) outcomes: a unifying view and choices of assumptions

The study of treatment effects is often complicated by noncompliance and missing data. In the one-sided noncompliance setting where of interest are the complier and noncomplier average causal effects, we address outcome missingness of the latent missing at random type (LMAR, also known as latent ignorability). That is, conditional on covariates and treatment assigned, the missingness may depend on compliance type. Within the instrumental variable (IV) approach to noncompliance, methods have been proposed for handling LMAR outcome that additionally invoke an exclusion restriction-type assumption on missingness, but no solution has been proposed for when a non-IV approach is used. This article focuses on effect identification in the presence of LMAR outcomes, with a view to flexibly accommodate different principal identification approaches. We show that under treatment assignment ignorability and LMAR only, effect nonidentifiability boils down to a set of two connected mixture equations involving unidentified stratum-specific response probabilities and outcome means. This clarifies that (except for a special case) effect identification generally requires two additional assumptions: a specific missingness mechanism assumption and a principal identification assumption. This provides a template for identifying effects based on separate choices of these assumptions. We consider a range of specific missingness assumptions, including those that have appeared in the literature and some new ones. Incidentally, we find an issue in the existing assumptions, and propose a modification of the assumptions to avoid the issue. Results under different assumptions are illustrated using data from the Baltimore Experience Corps Trial.

Causal inference for time-to-event data with a cured subpopulation

When studying the treatment effect on time-to-event outcomes, it is common that some individuals never experience failure events, which suggests that they have been cured. However, the cure status may not be observed due to censoring which makes it challenging to define treatment effects. Current methods mainly focus on estimating model parameters in various cure models, ultimately leading to a lack of causal interpretations. To address this issue, we propose 2 causal estimands, the timewise risk difference and mean survival time difference, in the always-uncured based on principal stratification as a complement to the treatment effect on cure rates. These estimands allow us to study the treatment effects on failure times in the always-uncured subpopulation. We show the identifiability using a substitutional variable for the potential cure status under ignorable treatment assignment mechanism, these 2 estimands are identifiable. We also provide estimation methods using mixture cure models. We applied our approach to an observational study that compared the leukemia-free survival rates of different transplantation types to cure acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Our proposed approach yielded insightful results that can be used to inform future treatment decisions.

A BAYESIAN MACHINE LEARNING APPROACH FOR ESTIMATING HETEROGENEOUS SURVIVOR CAUSAL EFFECTS: APPLICATIONS TO A CRITICAL CARE TRIAL

Assessing heterogeneity in the effects of treatments has become increasingly popular in the field of causal inference and carries important implications for clinical decision-making. While extensive literature exists for studying treatment effect heterogeneity when outcomes are fully observed, there has been limited development in tools for estimating heterogeneous causal effects when patient-centered outcomes are truncated by a terminal event, such as death. Due to mortality occurring during study follow-up, the outcomes of interest are unobservable, undefined, or not fully observed for many participants in which case principal stratification is an appealing framework to draw valid causal conclusions. Motivated by the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network (ARDSNetwork) ARDS respiratory management (ARMA) trial, we developed a flexible Bayesian machine learning approach to estimate the average causal effect and heterogeneous causal effects among the always-survivors stratum when clinical outcomes are subject to truncation. We adopted Bayesian additive regression trees (BART) to flexibly specify separate mean models for the potential outcomes and latent stratum membership. In the analysis of the ARMA trial, we found that the low tidal volume treatment had an overall benefit for participants sustaining acute lung injuries on the outcome of time to returning home but substantial heterogeneity in treatment effects among the always-survivors, driven most strongly by biologic sex and the alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient at baseline (a physiologic measure of lung function and degree of hypoxemia). These findings illustrate how the proposed methodology could guide the prognostic enrichment of future trials in the field.

Principal stratification analysis of noncompliance with time-to-event outcomes

Post-randomization events, also known as intercurrent events, such as treatment noncompliance and censoring due to a terminal event, are common in clinical trials. Principal stratification is a framework for causal inference in the presence of intercurrent events. The existing literature on principal stratification lacks generally applicable and accessible methods for time-to-event outcomes. In this paper, we focus on the noncompliance setting. We specify 2 causal estimands for time-to-event outcomes in principal stratification and provide a nonparametric identification formula. For estimation, we adopt the latent mixture modeling approach and illustrate the general strategy with a mixture of Bayesian parametric Weibull-Cox proportional hazards model for the outcome. We utilize the Stan programming language to obtain automatic posterior sampling of the model parameters. We provide analytical forms of the causal estimands as functions of the model parameters and an alternative numerical method when analytical forms are not available. We apply the proposed method to the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) trial to evaluate the causal effect of taking 81 versus 325 mg aspirin on the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. We develop the corresponding R package PStrata.

A mixed model approach to estimate the survivor average causal effect in cluster-randomized trials

In many medical studies, the outcome measure (such as quality of life, QOL) for some study participants becomes informatively truncated (censored, missing, or unobserved) due to death or other forms of dropout, creating a nonignorable missing data problem. In such cases, the use of a composite outcome or imputation methods that fill in unmeasurable QOL values for those who died rely on strong and untestable assumptions and may be conceptually unappealing to certain stakeholders when estimating a treatment effect. The survivor average causal effect (SACE) is an alternative causal estimand that surmounts some of these issues. While principal stratification has been applied to estimate the SACE in individually randomized trials, methods for estimating the SACE in cluster-randomized trials are currently limited. To address this gap, we develop a mixed model approach along with an expectation-maximization algorithm to estimate the SACE in cluster-randomized trials. We model the continuous outcome measure with a random intercept to account for intracluster correlations due to cluster-level randomization, and model the principal strata membership both with and without a random intercept. In simulations, we compare the performance of our approaches with an existing fixed-effects approach to illustrate the importance of accounting for clustering in cluster-randomized trials. The methodology is then illustrated using a cluster-randomized trial of telecare and assistive technology on health-related QOL in the elderly.

Stochastic Interventional Vaccine Efficacy and Principal Surrogate Analyses of Antibody Markers as Correlates of Protection against Symptomatic COVID-19 in the COVE mRNA-1273 Trial

The COVE trial randomized participants to receive two doses of mRNA-1273 vaccine or placebo on Days 1 and 29 (D1, D29). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG binding antibodies (bAbs), anti-receptor binding domain IgG bAbs, 50% inhibitory dilution neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers, and 80% inhibitory dilution nAb titers were measured at D29 and D57. We assessed these markers as correlates of protection (CoPs) against COVID-19 using stochastic interventional vaccine efficacy (SVE) analysis and principal surrogate (PS) analysis, frameworks not used in our previous COVE immune correlates analyses. By SVE analysis, hypothetical shifts of the D57 Spike IgG distribution from a geometric mean concentration (GMC) of 2737 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL (estimated vaccine efficacy (VE): 92.9% (95% CI: 91.7%, 93.9%)) to 274 BAU/mL or to 27,368 BAU/mL resulted in an overall estimated VE of 84.2% (79.0%, 88.1%) and 97.6% (97.4%, 97.7%), respectively. By binary marker PS analysis of Low and High subgroups (cut-point: 2094 BAU/mL), the ignorance interval (IGI) and estimated uncertainty interval (EUI) for VE were [85%, 90%] and (78%, 93%) for Low compared to [95%, 96%] and (92%, 97%) for High. By continuous marker PS analysis, the IGI and 95% EUI for VE at the 2.5th percentile (519.4 BAU/mL) vs. at the 97.5th percentile (9262.9 BAU/mL) of D57 Spike IgG concentration were [92.6%, 93.4%] and (89.2%, 95.7%) vs. [94.3%, 94.6%] and (89.7%, 97.0%). Results were similar for other D29 and D57 markers. Thus, the SVE and PS analyses additionally support all four markers at both time points as CoPs.

Solutions for surrogacy validation with longitudinal outcomes for a gene therapy

Valid surrogate endpoints S can be used as a substitute for a true outcome of interest T to measure treatment efficacy in a clinical trial. We propose a causal inference approach to validate a surrogate by incorporating longitudinal measurements of the true outcomes using a mixed modeling approach, and we define models and quantities for validation that may vary across the study period using principal surrogacy criteria. We consider a surrogate-dependent treatment efficacy curve that allows us to validate the surrogate at different time points. We extend these methods to accommodate a delayed-start treatment design where all patients eventually receive the treatment. Not all parameters are identified in the general setting. We apply a Bayesian approach for estimation and inference, utilizing more informative prior distributions for selected parameters. We consider the sensitivity of these prior assumptions as well as assumptions of independence among certain counterfactual quantities conditional on pretreatment covariates to improve identifiability. We examine the frequentist properties (bias of point and variance estimates, credible interval coverage) of a Bayesian imputation method. Our work is motivated by a clinical trial of a gene therapy where the functional outcomes are measured repeatedly throughout the trial.

A Bayesian Approach for Estimating the Survivor Average Causal Effect When Outcomes Are Truncated by Death in Cluster-Randomized Trials

Many studies encounter clustering due to multicenter enrollment and nonmortality outcomes, such as quality of life, that are truncated due to death-that is, missing not at random and nonignorable. Traditional missing-data methods and target causal estimands are suboptimal for statistical inference in the presence of these combined issues, which are especially common in multicenter studies and cluster-randomized trials (CRTs) carried out among the elderly or seriously ill. Using principal stratification, we developed a Bayesian estimator that jointly identifies the always-survivor principal stratum in a clustered/hierarchical data setting and estimates the average treatment effect among them (i.e., the survivor average causal effect (SACE)). In simulations, we observed low bias and good coverage with our method. In a motivating CRT, the SACE and the estimate from complete-case analysis differed in magnitude, but both were small, and neither was incompatible with a null effect. However, the SACE estimate has a clear causal interpretation. The option to assess the rigorously defined SACE estimand in studies with informative truncation and clustering can provide additional insight into an important subset of study participants. Based on the simulation study and CRT reanalysis, we provide practical recommendations for using the SACE in CRTs and software code to support future research.

Using principal stratification in analysis of clinical trials

The ICH E9(R1) addendum (2019) proposed principal stratification (PS) as one of five strategies for dealing with intercurrent events. Therefore, understanding the strengths, limitations, and assumptions of PS is important for the broad community of clinical trialists. Many approaches have been developed under the general framework of PS in different areas of research, including experimental and observational studies. These diverse applications have utilized a diverse set of tools and assumptions. Thus, need exists to present these approaches in a unifying manner. The goal of this tutorial is threefold. First, we provide a coherent and unifying description of PS. Second, we emphasize that estimation of effects within PS relies on strong assumptions and we thoroughly examine the consequences of these assumptions to understand in which situations certain assumptions are reasonable. Finally, we provide an overview of a variety of key methods for PS analysis and use a real clinical trial example to illustrate them. Examples of code for implementation of some of these approaches are given in Supplemental Materials.

Translating questions to estimands in randomized clinical trials with intercurrent events

Intercurrent (post-treatment) events occur frequently in randomized trials, and investigators often express interest in treatment effects that suitably take account of these events. Contrasts that naively condition on intercurrent events do not have a straight-forward causal interpretation, and the practical relevance of other commonly used approaches is debated. In this work, we discuss how to formulate and choose an estimand, beyond the marginal intention-to-treat effect, from the point of view of a decision maker and drug developer. In particular, we argue that careful articulation of a practically useful research question should either reflect decision making at this point in time or future drug development. Indeed, a substantially interesting estimand is simply a formalization of the (plain English) description of a research question. A common feature of estimands that are practically useful is that they correspond to possibly hypothetical but well-defined interventions in identifiable (sub)populations. To illustrate our points, we consider five examples that were recently used to motivate consideration of principal stratum estimands in clinical trials. In all of these examples, we propose alternative causal estimands, such as conditional effects, sequential regime effects, and separable effects, that correspond to explicit research questions of substantial interest.

Handling parametric assumptions in principal causal effect estimation using Gaussian mixtures

Given the latent stratum membership, principal stratification models with continuous outcomes naturally fit in the parametric estimation framework of Gaussian mixtures. However, with models that are not nonparametrically identified, relying on parametric mixture modeling has been mostly discouraged as a way of identifying principal effects. This study revisits this rather deserted use of parametric mixture modeling, which may open up various possibilities in principal stratification modeling. The main problem with using the parametric mixture modeling approach is that it is hard to assess the quality of principal effect estimates given its reliance on parametric conditions. As a way of assessing the estimation quality in this situation, this study proposes that we use parametric mixture modeling in two different ways, with and without the assurance of nonparametric identification. The key identifying assumption employed in this study is the moving exclusion restriction, a flexible version of the standard exclusion restriction assumption. This assumption is used as a temporary vehicle to help assess the quality of principal effect estimates obtained relying on parametric mixture modeling. The study presents promising results, showing the possibility of using parametric mixture modeling as an accessible tool for causal inference.

Assessing complier average causal effects from longitudinal trials with multiple endpoints and treatment noncompliance: An application to a study of Arthritis Health Journal

Treatment noncompliance often occurs in longitudinal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on human subjects, and can greatly complicate treatment effect assessment. The complier average causal effect (CACE) informs the intervention efficacy for the subpopulation who would comply regardless of assigned treatment and has been considered as patient-oriented treatment effects of interest in the presence of noncompliance. Real-world RCTs evaluating multifaceted interventions often employ multiple study endpoints to measure treatment success. In such trials, limited sample sizes, low compliance rates, and small to moderate effect sizes on individual endpoints can significantly reduce the power to detect CACE when these correlated endpoints are analyzed separately. To overcome the challenge, we develop a multivariate longitudinal potential outcome model with stratification on latent compliance types to efficiently assess multivariate CACEs (MCACE) by combining information across multiple endpoints and visits. Evaluation using simulation data shows a significant increase in the estimation efficiency with the MCACE model, including up to 50% reduction in standard errors (SEs) of CACE estimates and 1-fold increase in the power to detect CACE. Finally, we apply the proposed MCACE model to an RCT on Arthritis Health Journal online tool. Results show that the MCACE analysis detects significant and beneficial intervention effects on two of the six endpoints while estimating CACEs for these endpoints separately fail to detect treatment effect on any endpoint.

Clarifying selection bias in cluster randomized trials

BACKGROUND

In cluster randomized trials, patients are typically recruited after clusters are randomized, and the recruiters and patients may not be blinded to the assignment. This often leads to differential recruitment and consequently systematic differences in baseline characteristics of the recruited patients between intervention and control arms, inducing post-randomization selection bias. We aim to rigorously define causal estimands in the presence of selection bias. We elucidate the conditions under which standard covariate adjustment methods can validly estimate these estimands. We further discuss the additional data and assumptions necessary for estimating causal effects when such conditions are not met.

METHODS

Adopting the principal stratification framework in causal inference, we clarify there are two average treatment effect (ATE) estimands in cluster randomized trials: one for the overall population and one for the recruited population. We derive analytical formula of the two estimands in terms of principal-stratum-specific causal effects. Furthermore, using simulation studies, we assess the empirical performance of the multivariable regression adjustment method under different data generating processes leading to selection bias.

RESULTS

When treatment effects are heterogeneous across principal strata, the average treatment effect on the overall population generally differs from the average treatment effect on the recruited population. A naïve intention-to-treat analysis of the recruited sample leads to biased estimates of both average treatment effects. In the presence of post-randomization selection and without additional data on the non-recruited subjects, the average treatment effect on the recruited population is estimable only when the treatment effects are homogeneous between principal strata, and the average treatment effect on the overall population is generally not estimable. The extent to which covariate adjustment can remove selection bias depends on the degree of effect heterogeneity across principal strata.

CONCLUSION

There is a need and opportunity to improve the analysis of cluster randomized trials that are subject to post-randomization selection bias. For studies prone to selection bias, it is important to explicitly specify the target population that the causal estimands are defined on and adopt design and estimation strategies accordingly. To draw valid inferences about treatment effects, investigators should (1) assess the possibility of heterogeneous treatment effects, and (2) consider collecting data on covariates that are predictive of the recruitment process, and on the non-recruited population from external sources such as electronic health records.

Incorporating baseline covariates to validate surrogate endpoints with a constant biomarker under control arm

A surrogate endpoint S in a clinical trial is an outcome that may be measured earlier or more easily than the true outcome of interest T. In this work, we extend causal inference approaches to validate such a surrogate using potential outcomes. The causal association paradigm assesses the relationship of the treatment effect on the surrogate with the treatment effect on the true endpoint. Using the principal surrogacy criteria, we utilize the joint conditional distribution of the potential outcomes T, given the potential outcomes S. In particular, our setting of interest allows us to assume the surrogate under the placebo, S ( 0 ) , is zero-valued, and we incorporate baseline covariates in the setting of normally distributed endpoints. We develop Bayesian methods to incorporate conditional independence and other modeling assumptions and explore their impact on the assessment of surrogacy. We demonstrate our approach via simulation and data that mimics an ongoing study of a muscular dystrophy gene therapy.

Bayesian phase II clinical trial design with noncompliance

Noncompliance issue is common in early phase clinical trials; and may lead to biased estimation of the intent-to-treat effect and incorrect conclusions for the clinical trial. In this work, we propose a Bayesian approach for sequentially monitoring the phase II randomized clinical trials that takes account for the noncompliance information. We adopt the principal stratification framework and propose to use Bayesian additive regression trees for selecting useful baseline covariates and estimating the complier average causal effect (CACE) for both efficacy and toxicity outcomes. The decision of early termination or not is then made adaptively based on the estimated CACE from the accumulated data. Simulation studies have confirmed the excellent performance of the proposed design in the presence of noncompliance.

Incorporating partial adherence into the principal stratification analysis framework

Participants in pragmatic clinical trials often partially adhere to treatment. However, to simplify the analysis, most studies dichotomize adherence (supposing that subjects received either full or no treatment), which can introduce biases in the results. For example, the popular approach of principal stratification is based on the concept that the population can be separated into strata based on how they will react to treatment assignment, but this framework does not include strata in which a partially adhering participant would belong. We expanded the principal stratification framework to allow partial adherers to have their own principal stratum and treatment level. The expanded approach is feasible in pragmatic settings. We have designed a Monte Carlo posterior sampling method to obtain the relevant parameter estimates. Simulations were completed under a range of settings where participants partially adhered to treatment, including a hypothetical setting from a published simulation trial on the topic of partial adherence. The inference method is additionally applied to data from a real randomized clinical trial that features partial adherence. Comparison of the simulation results indicated that our method is superior in most cases to the biased estimators obtained through standard principal stratification. Simulation results further suggest that our proposed method may lead to increased accuracy of inference in settings where study participants only partially adhere to assigned treatment.

Implementation of tripartite estimands using adherence causal estimators under the causal inference framework

Intercurrent events (ICEs) and missing values are inevitable in clinical trials of any size and duration, making it difficult to assess the treatment effect for all patients in randomized clinical trials. Defining the appropriate estimand that is relevant to the clinical research question is the first step in analyzing data. The tripartite estimands, which evaluate the treatment differences in the proportion of patients with ICEs due to adverse events, the proportion of patients with ICEs due to lack of efficacy, and the primary efficacy outcome for those who can adhere to study treatment under the causal inference framework, are of interest to many stakeholders in understanding the totality of treatment effects. In this manuscript, we discuss the details of how to estimate tripartite estimands based on a causal inference framework and how to interpret tripartite estimates through a phase 3 clinical study evaluating a basal insulin treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes.

Assessing the ratio of means as a causal estimand in clinical endpoint bioequivalence studies in the presence of intercurrent events

In clinical endpoint bioequivalence studies, the observed per-protocol (PP) population (compliers and completers in general) is usually used in the primary analysis for equivalence assessment. However, intercurrent events, ie, missingness and noncompliance, are not properly handled. The resulting estimand is not causal. Previously, we proposed the first causal framework to assess equivalence in the presence of missing data and noncompliance. We proposed a causal survivor average causal effect (SACE) estimand for the difference of means (DOM). In equivalence assessment, DOM is not as widely used as the ratio of means (ROM). However, no existing formula links the observed PP estimand to the SACE estimand for ROM as exists for DOM. Herein, we propose a similar causal framework for ROM using the principal stratification approach, one of the strategies recommended by the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) E9 R1 addendum. We quantify the bias of the observed ROM PP estimand for the SACE estimand, which provides a basis to identify three conditions under which the two estimands are equal. We propose a sensitivity analysis method to evaluate the robustness of the current PP estimator to estimate the SACE estimand. We extend Fieller's confidence interval for the SACE estimand using ROM, which can be applied to many settings. Simulation demonstrates that the PP estimator is biased in either directions and may inflate type 1 error and/or change power when the three identified conditions are violated. Our work can be applied to comparative clinical biosimilar studies.

Analyzing patient-reported outcome data when completion differs between arms in open-label trials: an application of principal stratification

PURPOSE

Cancer trials are often open-label and include patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Previous work has demonstrated that patients may complete PRO assessments less frequently in the control arm compared with the experimental arm in open-label trials. Such differential completion may affect PRO results. This paper sought to explore principal stratification methodology to address potential bias caused by the posttreatment intermediate variable of questionnaire completion.

METHODS

We evaluated six randomized trials (five open-label and one double-blind) of anticancer therapies with varying levels of PRO completion submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We applied complete case analysis (CCA), multiple imputation (MI), and principal stratification to evaluate PRO results for quality of life (QOL) and the domains of physical, role, and emotional function (PF, RF, and EF). Assignment to potential principal strata was by the expectation maximization algorithm using patient baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Completion rates in the experimental arm ranged from 66% to 94% and 51% to 95% in the control arm. Four trials had negligible completion differences between arms (1%-2%), and two had large differences favoring the experimental arm (15%-17%). For trials with negligible completion differences, principal stratification results were similar to CCA and MI results for all domains. Notable differences in point estimates may be observed in trials with large differences in completion rates. However, in the examined trials, the confidence intervals for the principal stratification estimates overlapped with the ones obtained using CCA.

CONCLUSIONS

The principal stratification estimand may be a useful additional analysis, especially if PRO completion differs between arms.