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.

Simple Estimation of Patient-Oriented Effects From Randomized Trials: An Open and Shut CACE

In randomized controlled trials, the intention-to-treat estimator provides an unbiased estimate of the causal effect of treatment assignment on the outcome. However, patients often want to know what the effect would be if they were to take the treatment as prescribed (the patient-oriented effect), and several researchers have suggested that the more relevant causal effect for this question is the complier average causal effect (CACE), also referred to as the local average treatment effect. Sophisticated approaches to estimating the CACE include Bayesian and frequentist methods for principal stratification, inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighted estimators, and instrumental-variable (IV) analysis. All of these approaches exploit information about adherence to assigned treatment to improve upon the intention-to-treat estimator, but they are rarely used in practice, probably because of their complexity. The IV principal stratification estimator is simple to implement but has had limited use in practice, possibly due to lack of familiarity. Here, we show that the IV principal stratification estimator is a modified per-protocol estimator that should be obtainable from any randomized controlled trial, and we provide a closed form for its robust variance (and its uncertainty). Finally, we illustrate sensitivity analyses we conducted to assess inference in light of potential violations of the exclusion restriction assumption.

Causal inference methods to assess safety upper bounds in randomized trials with noncompliance

BACKGROUND

Premature discontinuation and other forms of noncompliance with treatment assignment can complicate causal inference of treatment effects in randomized trials. The intent-to-treat analysis gives unbiased estimates for causal effects of treatment assignment on outcome, but may understate potential benefit or harm of actual treatment. The corresponding upper confidence limit can also be underestimated.

PURPOSE

To compare estimates of the hazard ratio and upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval from causal inference methods that account for noncompliance with those from the intent-to-treat analysis.

METHODS

We used simulations with parameters chosen to reflect cardiovascular safety trials of diabetes drugs, with a focus on upper bound estimates relative to 1.3, based on regulatory guidelines. A total of 1000 simulations were run under each parameter combination for a hypothetical trial of 10,000 total subjects randomly assigned to active treatment or control at 1:1 ratio. Noncompliance was considered in the form of treatment discontinuation and cross-over at specified proportions, with an assumed true hazard ratio of 0.9, 1, and 1.3, respectively. Various levels of risk associated with being a non-complier (independent of treatment status) were evaluated. Hazard ratio and upper bound estimates from causal survival analysis and intent-to-treat were obtained from each simulation and summarized under each parameter setting.

RESULTS

Causal analysis estimated the true hazard ratio with little bias in almost all settings examined. Intent-to-treat was unbiased only when the true hazard ratio = 1; otherwise it underestimated both benefit and harm. When upper bound estimates from intent-to-treat were ≥1.3, corresponding estimates from causal analysis were also ≥1.3 in almost 100% of the simulations, regardless of the true hazard ratio. When upper bound estimates from intent-to-treat were <1.3 and the true hazard ratio = 1, corresponding upper bound estimates from causal analysis were ≥1.3 in up to 66% of the simulations under some settings.

LIMITATIONS

Simulations cannot cover all scenarios for noncompliance in real randomized trials.

CONCLUSION

Causal survival analysis was superior to intent-to-treat in estimating the true hazard ratio with respect to bias in the presence of noncompliance. However, its large variance should be considered for safety upper bound exclusion especially when the true hazard ratio = 1. Our simulations provided a broad reference for practical considerations of bias-variance trade-off in dealing with noncompliance in cardiovascular safety trials of diabetes drugs. Further research is warranted for the development and application of causal inference methods in the evaluation of safety upper bounds.