Search

Background: Reasons for treatment discontinuation are important not only to understand the benefit and risk profile of experimental treatments, but also to help choose appropriate strategies to handle intercurrent events in defining estimands. The current case report form (CRF) commonly in use mixes the underlying reasons for treatment discontinuation and who makes the decision for treatment discontinuation, often resulting in an inaccurate collection of reasons for treatment discontinuation. Methods and results: We systematically reviewed and analyzed treatment discontinuation data from nine phase 2 and phase 3 studies for insulin peglispro. A total of 857 participants with treatment discontinuation were included in the analysis. Our review suggested that, due to the vague multiple-choice options for treatment discontinuation present in the CRF, different reasons were sometimes recorded for the same underlying reason for treatment discontinuation. Based on our review and analysis, we suggest an intermediate solution and a more systematic way to improve the current CRF for treatment discontinuations. Conclusion: This research provides insight and directions on how to optimize the CRF for recording treatment discontinuation. Further work needs to be done to build the learning into Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium standards., Comment: 13 pages, 3 figures, 1 table

Estimation of treatment effect for principal strata has been studied for more than two decades. Existing research exclusively focuses on the estimation, but there is little research on forming and testing hypotheses for principal stratification-based estimands. In this brief report, we discuss a phenomenon in which the true treatment effect for a principal stratum may not equal zero even if the two treatments have the same effect at patient level which implies an equal average treatment effect for the principal stratum. We explain this phenomenon from the perspective of selection bias. This is an important finding and deserves attention when using and interpreting results based on principal stratification. There is a need to further study how to form the null hypothesis for estimands for a principal stratum., Comment: 9 pages

In clinical trials, it is often of interest to understand the principal causal effect (PCE), the average treatment effect for a principal stratum (a subset of patients defined by the potential outcomes of one or more post-baseline variables). Commonly used assumptions include monotonicity, principal ignorability, and cross-world assumptions of principal ignorability and principal strata independence. In this article, we evaluate these assumptions through a 2$\times$2 cross-over study in which the potential outcomes under both treatments can be observed, provided there are no carry-over and study period effects. From this example, it seemed the monotonicity assumption and the within-treatment principal ignorability assumptions did not hold well. On the other hand, the assumptions of cross-world principal ignorability and cross-world principal stratum independence conditional on baseline covariates seemed reasonable. With the latter assumptions, we estimated the PCEs, defined by whether the blood glucose standard deviation increased in each treatment period, without relying on the cross-over feature, producing estimates close to the results when exploiting the cross-over feature. To the best of our knowledge, this article is the first attempt to evaluate the plausibility of commonly used assumptions for estimating PCEs using a cross-over trial., Comment: 25 pages, 4 tables

Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard to evaluate the treatment effect (estimand) for efficacy and safety. According to the recent International Council on Harmonisation (ICH)-E9 addendum (R1), intercurrent events (ICEs) need to be considered when defining an estimand, and principal stratum is one of the five strategies to handle ICEs. Qu et al. (2020, Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research 12:1-18) proposed estimators for the adherer average causal effect (AdACE) for estimating the treatment difference for those who adhere to one or both treatments based on the causal-inference framework, and demonstrated the consistency of those estimators; however, this method requires complex custom programming related to high-dimensional numeric integrations. In this article, we implemented the AdACE estimators using multiple imputation (MI) and constructs CI through bootstrapping. A simulation study showed that the MI-based estimators provided consistent estimators with the nominal coverage probabilities of CIs for the treatment difference for the adherent populations of interest. As an illustrative example, the new method was applied to data from a real clinical trial comparing 2 types of basal insulin for patients with type 1 diabetes., Comment: 22 pages

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., Comment: 25 pages, 5 figures, 2 tables