[Special issue PRO] A demonstration of estimands and sensitivity analyses for time-to-deterioration of patient reported outcomes

In oncology trials, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), specifically patient-reported symptom burden and functional status, can support the interpretation of survival endpoints, such as progression-free survival. However, applying time-to-event endpoints to patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data is challenging. For example, in time-to-deterioration analyses clinical events such as disease progression are common in many settings and are often handled through censoring the patient at the time of occurrence; however, disease progression and HRQoL are often related leading to informative censoring. Special consideration to the definition of events and intercurrent events (ICEs) is necessary. In this work, we demonstrate time-to-deterioration of PRO estimands and sensitivity analyses to answer research questions using composite, hypothetical, and treatment policy strategies applied to a single endpoint of disease-related symptoms. Multiple imputation methods under both the missing-at-random and missing-not-at-random assumptions are used as sensitivity analyses of primary estimands. Hazard ratios ranged from 0.52 to 0.66 over all the estimands and sensitivity analyses modeling a robust treatment effect favoring the treatment in time to disease symptom deterioration or death. Differences in the estimands include how people who experience disease progression or discontinue the randomized treatment due to AEs are accounted for in the analysis. We use the estimand framework to define interpretable and principled approaches for different time-to-deterioration research questions and provide practical recommendations. Reporting the proportions of patient events and patient censoring by reason helps understand the mechanisms that drive the results, allowing for optimal interpretation.

Estimation of treatment effects in short-term depression studies. An evaluation based on the ICH E9(R1) estimands framework

Estimands aim to incorporate intercurrent events in design, data collection and estimation of treatment effects in clinical trials. Our aim was to understand what estimands may correspond to efficacy analyses commonly employed in clinical trials conducted before publication of ICH E9(R1). We re-analysed six clinical trials evaluating a new anti-depression treatment. We selected the following analysis methods-ANCOVA on complete cases, following last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation and following multiple imputation; mixed-models for repeated measurements without imputation (MMRM), MMRM following LOCF imputation and following jump-to-reference imputation; and pattern-mixture mixed models. We included a principal stratum analysis based on the predicted subset of the study population who would not discontinue due to adverse events or lack of efficacy. We translated each analysis into the implicitly targeted estimand, and formulated corresponding clinical questions. We could map six estimands to analysis methods. The same analysis method could be mapped to more than one estimand. The major difference between estimands was the strategy for intercurrent events, with other attributes mostly the same across mapped estimands. The quantitative differences in MADRS10 population-level summaries between the estimands were 4-8 points. Not all six estimands had a clinically meaningful interpretation. Only a few analyses would target the same estimand, hence only few could be used as sensitivity analyses. The fact that an analysis could estimate different estimands emphasises the importance of prospectively defining the estimands targeting the primary objective of a trial. The fact that an estimand can be targeted by different analyses emphasises the importance of prespecifying precisely the estimator for the targeted estimand.

Addition of azathioprine to the switch of anti-TNF in patients with IBD in clinical relapse with undetectable anti-TNF trough levels and antidrug antibodies: a prospective randomised trial

OBJECTIVES

In patients with IBD experiencing an immune-mediated loss of response (LOR) to antitumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF), algorithms recommend a switch of anti-TNF without immunosuppressive drug. The aim of our study was to compare in these patients two strategies: either switch to a second anti-TNF alone or with addition of azathioprine (AZA). After randomisation outcomes (time to clinical and pharmacokinetic failure) were compared between the two groups during a 2-year follow-up period.

DESIGN

Consecutive IBD patients in immune-mediated LOR to a first optimised anti-TNF given in monotherapy were randomised to receive either AZA or nothing with induction by a second anti-TNF in both arms. Clinical failure was defined for Crohn's disease (CD) as a Harvey-Bradshaw index ≥5 associated with a faecal calprotectin level >250 µg/g stool and for UC as a Mayo score >5 with endoscopic subscore >1 or as the occurrence of adverse events requiring to stop treatment. Unfavourable pharmacokinetics of the second anti-TNF were defined by the appearance of undetectable trough levels of anti-TNF with high antibodies (drug-sensitive assay) or by that of antibodies (drug-tolerant assay).

RESULTS

Ninety patients (48 CDs) were included, and 45 of them received AZA after randomisation. The second anti-TNF was adalimumab or infliximab in 40 and 50 patients, respectively. Rates of clinical failure and occurrence of unfavourable pharmacokinetics were higher in monotherapy compared with combination therapy (p<0.001; median time of clinical failure since randomisation 18 vs >24 months). At 24 months, survival rates without clinical failure and without appearance of unfavourable pharmacokinetics were respectively 22 versus 77% and 22% versus 78% (p<0.001 for both) in monotherapy versus combination therapy. Only the use of combination therapy was associated with favourable outcomes after anti-TNF switch.

CONCLUSION

In case of immune-mediated LOR to a first anti-TNF, AZA should be associated with the second anti-TNF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

03580876.

The potential of the estimands framework for clinical pharmacology trials: Some discussion points

The recently finalised and published guideline ICH E9 (R1) introduced a new framework for the statistical analysis of clinical trials, namely that of "estimands". While the framework was originally developed for the analysis of late-phase trials, it could also provide a rigorous basis for the analysis of clinical pharmacology trials. We illustrate potential applications on two examples: a multiple dose pharmacology trial and the interpretation of confirmatory bioequivalence (BE) trials according to the current FDA and EMA BE guidelines.