Estimators for handling COVID-19-related intercurrent events with a hypothetical strategy.
Journal
Pharmaceutical statistics
ISSN: 1539-1612
Titre abrégé: Pharm Stat
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101201192
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2022
11 2022
Historique:
revised:
13
05
2022
received:
15
07
2021
accepted:
25
05
2022
pubmed:
29
6
2022
medline:
18
11
2022
entrez:
28
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinical trials across disease areas, raising the questions how interpretable results can be obtained from impacted studies. Applying the estimands framework, analyses may seek to estimate the treatment effect in the hypothetical absence of such impact. However, no established estimators exist. This simulation study, based on an ongoing clinical trial in patients with Tourette syndrome, compares the performance of candidate estimators for estimands including either a continuous or binary variable and applying a hypothetical strategy for COVID-19-related intercurrent events (IE). The performance is investigated in a wide range of scenarios, under the null and the alternative hypotheses, including different modeling assumptions for the effect of the IE and proportions of affected patients ranging from 10% to 80%. Bias and type I error inflation were minimal or absent for most estimators under most scenarios, with only multiple imputation- and weighting-based methods displaying a type I error inflation in some scenarios. Of more concern, all methods that discarded post-IE data displayed a sharp decrease of power proportional to the proportion of affected patients, corresponding to both a reduced precision of estimation and larger confidence intervals. The simulation study shows that de-mediation via g-estimation is a promising approach. Besides showing the best performance in our simulation study, these approaches allow to estimate the effect of the IE on the outcome and cross-compare between different studies affected by similar IEs. Importantly, the results can be extrapolated to IEs not related to COVID-19 that follow a similar causal structure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35762230
doi: 10.1002/pst.2244
pmc: PMC9349873
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1258-1280Informations de copyright
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
FDA. Statistical Considerations for Clinical Trials During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. 2020;
EMA. Points to consider on implications of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on methodological aspects of ongoing clinical trials.
Hamasaki T, Bretz F, Cooner F, LaVange LM, Posch M. Statistical challenges in the conduct and Management of Ongoing Clinical Trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stat Biopharm Res. 2020;12:397-398. doi:10.1080/19466315.2020.1828692
Meyer RD, Daniel Meyer R, Ratitch B, et al. Statistical issues and recommendations for clinical trials conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stat Biopharm Res. 2020;12:399-411. doi:10.1080/19466315.2020.1779122
ICH. Addendum of Estimands and sensitivity analysis in. Clin Trials. 2019. https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E9-R1_Step4_Guideline_2019_1203.pdf
Akacha M, Kothny W. Estimands: a more strategic approach to study design and analysis. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017;102:894-896. doi:10.1002/cpt.872
Jin M, Liu G. Estimand framework: delineating what to be estimated with clinical questions of interest in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2020;96:106093. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2020.106093
Phillips A, Clark T. Estimands in practice: bridging the gap between study objectives and statistical analysis. Pharm Stat. 2020;20:68-76. doi:10.1002/pst.2056
Hemmings R. Under a black cloud glimpsing a silver lining: comment on statistical issues and recommendations for clinical trials conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stat Biopharm Res. 2020;12:414-418. doi:10.1080/19466315.2020.1785931
Degtyarev E, Rufibach K, Shentu Y, et al. Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on the clinical trial objective and analysis of oncology clinical trials-application of the Estimand framework. Stat Biopharm Res. 2020;12:427-437.
Leckman JF, Riddle MA, Hardin MT, et al. The Yale global tic severity scale: initial testing of a clinician-rated scale of tic severity. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1989;28:566-573.
Jakubovski E, Pisarenko A, Fremer C, et al. The CANNA-TICS study protocol: a randomized multi-center double-blind placebo controlled trial to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of nabiximols in the treatment of adults with chronic tic disorders. Front Psych. 2020;11:1330.
Lasch F, Guizzaro L, Aguirre Dávila L, Müller-Vahl K, Koch A. Potential impact of COVID-19 on ongoing clinical trials: a simulation study with the neurological Yale global tic severity scale based on the CANNA-TICS study. Pharm Stat. 2021;20:675-691. doi:10.1002/pst.2100
Mataix-Cols D, Ringberg H, Fernández de la Cruz L. Perceived worsening of tics in adult patients with Tourette syndrome after the COVID-19 outbreak. Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2020;7:725-726. doi:10.1002/mdc3.13004
Grady B, Myers KM, Nelson E-L, et al. American telemedicine association Telemental health S, guidelines working G. evidence-based practice for telemental health. Telemed J E Health. 2011;17:131-148. doi:10.1089/tmj.2010.0158
Schrag A, Martino D, Apter A, et al. European multicentre tics in children studies (EMTICS): protocol for two cohort studies to assess risk factors for tic onset and exacerbation in children and adolescents. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019;28:91-109. doi:10.1007/s00787-018-1190-4
Grady BJ, Melcer T. A retrospective evaluation of TeleMental healthcare services for remote military populations. Telemed J E Health. 2005;11:551-558. doi:10.1089/tmj.2005.11.551
Loh PK, Ramesh P, Maher S, Saligari J, Flicker L, Goldswain P. Can patients with dementia be assessed at a distance? The use of telehealth and standardised assessments. Intern Med J. 2004;34:239-242. doi:10.1111/j.1444-0903.2004.00531.x
Van Lancker K, Tarima S, Bartlett J, Bauer M, Bharani-Dharan B, Bretz F, Flournoy N, Michiels H, Olarte Parra C, Rosenberger JL, Cro S. Estimands and their estimators for clinical trials impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic: a report from the NISS Ingram Olkin forum series on unplanned clinical trial disruptions. In arxivorg 2022.
Richiardi L, Bellocco R, Zugna D. Mediation analysis in epidemiology: methods, interpretation and bias. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:1511-1519.
Loh WW, Moerkerke B, Loeys T, Poppe L, Crombez G, Vansteelandt S. Estimation of controlled direct effects in longitudinal mediation analyses with latent variables in randomized studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2020;55:763-785.
Vansteelandt S. Estimating direct effects in cohort and case-control studies. Epidemiology. 2009;20:851-860.
Acharya A, Blackwell M, Sen M. Explaining causal findings without bias: detecting and assessing direct effects. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2016;110:512-529.
Acharya A, Blackwell M, Sen M, Kuriwaki S, Blackwell MM. Package ‘DirectEffects’. 2018. https://cran.r-hub.io/web/packages/DirectEffects/DirectEffects.pdf
Hernan MA, Robins J. Causal Inference: What if. Chapman & Hill/CRC; 2020.
Mallinckrodt C, Molenberghs G, Lipkovich I, Ratitch B. Estimands, Estimators and Sensitivity Analysis in Clinical Trials. CRC Press; 2019.
Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. John Wiley & Sons; 2002.
Morris TP, White IR, Royston P. Tuning multiple imputation by predictive mean matching and local residual draws. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:1-13.
Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. Mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. J Stat Softw. 2010;45:1-68.
Schafer JL. Multiple imputation: a primer. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:3-15. doi:10.1177/096228029900800102
Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Survey Nonresponse. Wiley; 1987.
Eekhout I, van de Wiel MA, Heymans MW. Methods for significance testing of categorical covariates in logistic regression models after multiple imputation: power and applicability analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:129. doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0404-7
Gaffert P, Meinfelder F, Bosch V. Towards an MI-proper predictive mean matching. https://www.uni-bambergde/fileadmin/uni/fakultaeten/sowi_lehrstuehle/statistik/Personen/Dateien_Florian/properPMMpdf2016
Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
Burgette LF, Reiter JP. Multiple imputation for missing data via sequential regression trees. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172:1070-1076. doi:10.1093/aje/kwq260
Doove LL, Van Buuren S, Dusseldorp E. Recursive partitioning for missing data imputation in the presence of interaction effects. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2014;72:92-104. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2013.10.025
Vansteelandt S, Carpenter J, Kenward MG. Analysis of incomplete data using inverse probability weighting and doubly robust estimators. Methodol. 2010;6:37-48.
Davison AC, Hinkley DV. Bootstrap Methods and Their Application. Cambridge University Press; 1997.
Canty A, Ripley B. boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. R Package Version 1.2-43. Cambridge University Press; 2019.
Morris TP, White IR, Crowther MJ. Using simulation studies to evaluate statistical methods. Stat Med. 2019;38:2074-2102.
Lasch F, Guizzaro L, Pétavy F, Gallo C. A simulation study on the estimation of the effect in the hypothetical scenario of no use of symptomatic treatment in trials for disease-modifying agents for Alzheimer's disease. Stat. Biopharm. Res. 2022. doi:10.1080/19466315.2022.2055633
Floden L, Bell ML. Imputation strategies when a continuous outcome is to be dichotomized for responder analysis: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:1-11.