Treatment Switching in the VenUS IV trial Methods to manage treatment non-compliance in RCTs with...
-
Upload
maurice-spencer -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Treatment Switching in the VenUS IV trial Methods to manage treatment non-compliance in RCTs with...
Treatment Switching in the VenUS IV trial
Methods to manage treatment non-compliance in RCTs with time-to-event
outcomesCaroline FairhurstYork Trials Unit
Context
• Two arm RCT• Clinical setting• Continuous treatment • Time-to-event outcome (e.g., death,
healing)
Dream or reality?
Ideal• All participants will
remain in the trial throughout follow-up
• Will be concordant with their allocated treatment
• Will provide outcome data
Reality• Participants withdraw
from the trial and are lost to follow-up
• Withdraw from treatment
• Deviate from their allocated trial treatment
Treatment switching
Problem?
• Switching to the alternative trial treatment makes randomised groups more similar
• Dilutes the treatment effect observed from a comparison of treatment groups as randomised ignoring deviations from allocated treatment (ITT)
• If you want to estimate the effect had fewer switches occurred, ITT analysis biased towards the null of no difference
VenUS IV trial
Venous leg ulcers are wounds that form on gaiter region of the leg
They are painful, malodorous and prone to infection
Difficult to heal and 12 month recurrence rates are 18-28%
VenUS I, II, III
Four layer bandaging is current gold standard
VenUS IV trial
• Population: Patients aged over 18 with at least one venous leg ulcer and able to tolerate high compression to the leg
• Intervention: Two layer high compression hosiery
• Control: Four layer high compression bandaging
• Outcome: Time to healing of the largest ulcer
Treatment switchingRandomised
n=457
Hosieryn=230
Bandagen=224
Hosiery Bandage
Non-trial treatment
n=42
Non-trial treatment
n=46n=46n=16
Treatment switching
Increase in ulcer a
rea
Compression
uncomfortable
Ulcer deterio
ration
Simple methods - ITT
Intention-to-treat• ITT recommended (ICH E9)• Compares individuals in the treatment groups
to which they were randomised• Estimates the effect of offering the two
treatment policies to patients with whatever subsequent changes may occur
• “pragmatic effectiveness not biological efficacy”
• But what about effect of receiving experimental treatment?
Simple methods - PP
Per-protocol• 1. Excludes patients who switch
Assumptions: Switchers have same prognosis as non-switchers so selection bias not introduced
• 2. Censor patients at time of switch
Assumptions: Decision to switch not related to prognosis so censoring non-informative
Simple methods - TTV
Treatment as a time-varying covariate
Time-to-event model adjusted for time-dependent treatment covariate:
0, whilst receiving control treatment1, whilst receiving experimental
treatment
Breaks randomisation balance and so subject to selection bias if switching related to prognosis
trt=
Complex methods
Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time Model• Attempt to estimate survival time lost/gained
by exposure to experimental treatment• Relate the observed survival time, Ti, to the counterfactual survival time, Ui by
Time on control treatment
Time on experimental treatment Acceleration
factor
RPSFTM
• For patients (always) treated with control treatment: Ti1=0 Þ Ti=Ui
• For patients (always) treated with experimental treatment Ti0=0 Þ Ti=Ui
• Experimental treatment ‘multiplies’ survival time by relative to control treatment
RPSFTM
Control patient
RandomisationDeath
Control patient who switches
Observed
Death
Time
Counterfactual
Expected survival time without active treatment – `shrunk’ by a factor of
Death
Counterfactual
Counterfactual
Observed
Observed
Treatment patient
RPSFTM
Grid search for :• Vary values of by a small amount between
two plausible minimum and maximum values• Transform observed survival times using
• Compare the counterfactual survival times between the two randomised groups (e.g., logrank test or Cox model)
• Let be value of which maximises the p-value from the test, then acceleration factor is
Assumptions
• Randomisation based treatment effect estimator
• Rank preserving: if patient i fails before patient j on treatment A, then i would fail before j on treatment B
• Assumes the treatment effect is the same regardless of when patient starts to receive experimental treatment
Complex methods
Iterative parameter estimation algorithm• Extension of RPSFTM methods• Assume the same causal model
relating actual and counterfactual survival times
• Different estimation process for
IPE
• A parametric accelerated failure time model is fit to the observed survival times (e.g., Exponential, Weibull)
• Initial estimate of acceleration factor is obtained
• This is used to create first counterfactual dataset, U1, using
IPE
• Same parametric accelerated failure time model is fit to the
counterfactual survival time• New estimate of obtained
• New counterfactual dataset created
Until estimate of converges (is within, say, 10-5
of the previous estimate)
AF or HR?
Note • strbee Stata program (Ian White) • ipe option• hr option• Final estimate of , used to ‘correct’
observed survival times• Proportional hazards model used to
estimate ‘corrected’ HR
Application to VenUS IVMethod Treatment
effect form
Estimate 95% CI P-value
ITT HR 0.99 (0.79, 1.25)
0.96
PP_EXC HR 1.10 (0.86, 1.41)
0.43
PP_CENS HR 1.23 (0.98, 1.54)
0.08
TTV HR 1.20 (0.95, 1.50)
0.13
RPSFTM_log 0.92 (0.66, 1.28)
0.63
RPSFTM_cox 0.91 (0.69, 1.21)
0.53
IPE_exp 0.89 - -
IPE_wei 0.88 - -
Simulation
• A simulation study suggested that the simple methods can significantly overestimate the true treatment effect, whilst the more complex methods of RPSFTM and IPE produce less biased results
Conclusion
• ITT analysis recommended as primary analysis
• Consider a method to estimate the true effect of efficacy as secondary analysis, but not PP
• Different methods can be used for continuous or categorical variables, e.g. CACE analysis
Acknowledgements
• York Trials Unit• VenUS IV trial team• Supervisor, Professor Mike Campbell
(ScHARR, Sheffield)
References
• Ashby, R. L., et al. (2014). "Clinical and cost-effectiveness of compression hosiery versus compression bandages in treatment of venous leg ulcers (Venous leg Ulcer Study IV, VenUS IV): a randomised controlled trial." The Lancet 383(9920): 871-879.
• Robins, J. and A. Tsiatis (1991). "Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using rank preserving structural failure time models." Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods 20(8): 2609 - 2631.
• White, I., et al. (1999). "Randomization-based methods for correcting for treatment changes: Examples from the Concorde trial." Statistics in Medicine 18(19): 2617 - 2634.
• White, I., et al. (2002). "strbee: Randomization-based efficacy estimator." The Stata Journal 2(Number 2): 140 - 150.
• Branson, M. and J. Whitehead (2002). "Estimating a treatment effect in survival studies in which patients switch treatment." Statistics in Medicine 21: 2449 - 2463.