Improved two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: g-estimation to address time-dependent confounding

被引:23
作者
Latimer, N. R. [1 ]
White, I. R. [2 ]
Tilling, K. [3 ,4 ]
Siebert, U. [5 ,6 ,7 ,8 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sheffield, Sch Hlth & Related Res, 30 Regent St, Sheffield S1 4DA, S Yorkshire, England
[2] UCL, MRC Clin Trials Unit, London, England
[3] Univ Bristol, Bristol Med Sch, Populat Hlth Sci, Bristol, Avon, England
[4] Univ Bristol, MRC Integrat Epidemiol Unit, Bristol, Avon, England
[5] UMIT Univ Hlth Sci Med Informat & Technol, Dept Publ Hlth Hlth Serv Res & Hlth Technol Asses, Hall In Tirol, Austria
[6] ONCOTYROL Ctr Personalized Canc Med, Innsbruck, Austria
[7] Harvard Med Sch, Harvard TH Chan Sch Publ Hlth, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[8] Harvard Med Sch, Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Boston, MA 02115 USA
基金
英国医学研究理事会; 美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Treatment switching; treatment crossover; survival analysis; overall survival; oncology; health technology assessment; time-to-event outcomes; prediction; time-dependent confounding; structural nested models; g-estimation; counterfactual; MARGINAL STRUCTURAL MODELS; INVERSE PROBABILITY; PROPHYLAXIS THERAPY; CLINICAL-TRIALS; SURVIVAL; LIMITATIONS; NONCOMPLIANCE; CROSSOVER; WEIGHTS;
D O I
10.1177/0962280220912524
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
In oncology trials, control group patients often switch onto the experimental treatment during follow-up, usually after disease progression. In this case, an intention-to-treat analysis will not address the policy question of interest - that of whether the new treatment represents an effective and cost-effective use of health care resources, compared to the standard treatment. Rank preserving structural failure time models (RPSFTM), inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW) and two-stage estimation (TSE) have often been used to adjust for switching to inform treatment reimbursement policy decisions. TSE has been applied using a simple approach (TSEsimp), assuming no time-dependent confounding between the time of disease progression and the time of switch. This is problematic if there is a delay between progression and switch. In this paper we introduce TSEgest, which uses structural nested models and g-estimation to account for time-dependent confounding, and compare it to TSEsimp, RPSFTM and IPCW. We simulated scenarios where control group patients could switch onto the experimental treatment with and without time-dependent confounding being present. We varied switching proportions, treatment effects and censoring proportions. We assessed adjustment methods according to their estimation of control group restricted mean survival times that would have been observed in the absence of switching. All methods performed well in scenarios with no time-dependent confounding. TSEgest and RPSFTM continued to perform well in scenarios with time-dependent confounding, but TSEsimp resulted in substantial bias. IPCW also performed well in scenarios with time-dependent confounding, except when inverse probability weights were high in relation to the size of the group being subjected to weighting, which occurred when there was a combination of modest sample size and high switching proportions. TSEgest represents a useful addition to the collection of methods that may be used to adjust for treatment switching in trials in order to address policy-relevant questions.
引用
收藏
页码:2900 / 2918
页数:19
相关论文
共 49 条
[1]  
Armitage P, 1998, ENCY BIOSTATISTICS, P4372
[2]  
Briggs A, 2006, DECISION MODELLING H
[3]   The design of simulation studies in medical statistics [J].
Burton, Andrea ;
Altman, Douglas G. ;
Royston, Patrick ;
Holder, Roger L. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2006, 25 (24) :4279-4292
[4]  
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), 2017, Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada, V4th
[5]   Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models [J].
Cole, Stephen R. ;
Hernan, Miguel A. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2008, 168 (06) :656-664
[6]  
COX DR, 1972, J R STAT SOC B, V34, P187
[7]   TREATMENT SWITCHING IN CANCER TRIALS: ISSUES AND PROPOSALS [J].
Henshall, Chris ;
Latimer, Nicholas R. ;
Sansom, Lloyd ;
Ward, Robyn L. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2016, 32 (03) :167-174
[8]   Marginal structural models to estimate the joint causal effect of nonrandomized treatments [J].
Hernán, MA ;
Brumback, B ;
Robins, JM .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 2001, 96 (454) :440-448
[9]   Limitation of Inverse Probability-of-Censoring Weights in Estimating Survival in the Presence of Strong Selection Bias [J].
Howe, Chanelle J. ;
Cole, Stephen R. ;
Chmiel, Joan S. ;
Munoz, Alvaro .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 173 (05) :569-577
[10]   Methods for Adjusting for Bias Due to Crossover in Oncology Trials [J].
Ishak, K. Jack ;
Proskorovsky, Irina ;
Korytowsky, Beata ;
Sandin, Rickard ;
Faivre, Sandrine ;
Valle, Juan .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2014, 32 (06) :533-546