Translating questions to estimands in randomized clinical trials with intercurrent events

Mats Julius Stensrud
2022
Journal paper

Abstract

Intercurrent (post-treatment) events occur frequently in randomized trials, and investigators often express interest in treatment effects that suitably take account of these events. Contrasts that naively condition on intercurrent events do not have a straight-forward causal interpretation, and the practical relevance of other commonly used approaches is debated. In this work, we discuss how to formulate and choose an estimand, beyond the marginal intention-to-treat effect, from the point of view of a decision maker and drug developer. In particular, we argue that careful articulation of a practically useful research question should either reflect decision making at this point in time or future drug development. Indeed, a substantially interesting estimand is simply a formalization of the (plain English) description of a research question. A common feature of estimands that are practically useful is that they correspond to possibly hypothetical but well-defined interventions in identifiable (sub)populations. To illustrate our points, we consider five examples that were recently used to motivate consideration of principal stratum estimands in clinical trials. In all of these examples, we propose alternative causal estimands, such as conditional effects, sequential regime effects, and separable effects, that correspond to explicit research questions of substantial interest.

Official source

https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/294453?ln=en

About this result

This page is automatically generated and may contain information that is not correct, complete, up-to-date, or relevant to your search query. The same applies to every other page on this website. Please make sure to verify the information with EPFL's official sources.

Related concepts

Related publications

Conditional separable effects

Mats Julius Stensrud

Researchers are often interested in treatment effects on outcomes that are only defined conditional on a post-treatment event status. For example, in a study of the effect of different cancer treatments on quality of life at end of follow-up, the quality of life of individuals who die during the study is undefined. In these settings, a naive contrast of outcomes conditional on the post-treatment variable is not an average causal effect, even in a randomized experiment. Therefore the effect in the principal stratum of those who would have the same value of the post-treatment variable regardless of treatment, such as the always survivors in a truncation by death setting, is often advocated for causal inference. While this principal stratum effect is a well defined causal contrast, it is often hard to justify that it is relevant to scientists, patients or policy makers, and it cannot be identified without relying on unfalsifiable assumptions. Here we formulate alternative estimands, the conditional separable effects, that have a natural causal interpretation under assumptions that can be falsified in a randomized experiment. We provide identification results and introduce different estimators, including a doubly robust estimator derived from the nonparametric influence function. As an illustration, we estimate a conditional separable effect of chemotherapies on quality of life in patients with prostate cancer, using data from a randomized clinical trial.

2020

In time-to-event settings, the presence of competing events complicates the definition of causal effects. Here we propose the new separable effects to study the causal effect of a treatment on an event of interest. The separable direct effect is the treatment effect on the event of interest not mediated by its effect on the competing event. The separable indirect effect is the treatment effect on the event of interest only through its effect on the competing event. Similar to Robins and Richardson’s extended graphical approach for mediation analysis, the separable effects can only be identified under the assumption that the treatment can be decomposed into two distinct components that exert their effects through distinct causal pathways. Unlike existing definitions of causal effects in the presence of competing events, our estimands do not require cross-world contrasts or hypothetical interventions to prevent death. As an illustration, we apply our approach to a randomized clinical trial on estrogen therapy in individuals with prostate cancer. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

2020

Time-to-event outcomes are often evaluated on the hazard scale, but interpreting hazards may be difficult. Recently in the causal inference literature concerns have been raised that hazards actually have a built-in selection bias that prevents simple causal interpretations. This is a problem even in randomized controlled trials, where hazard ratios have become a standard measure of treatment effects. Modelling on the hazard scale is nevertheless convenient, for example to adjust for covariates; using hazards for intermediate calculations may therefore be desirable. In this paper we present a generic method for transforming hazard estimates consistently to other scales at which these built-in selection biases are avoided. The method is based on differential equations and generalizes a well-known relation between the Nelson–Aalen and Kaplan–Meier estimators. Using the martingale central limit theorem, we show that covariances can be estimated consistently for a large class of estimators, thus allowing for rapid calculation of confidence intervals. Hence, given cumulative hazard estimates based on, for example, Aalen’s additive hazard model, we can obtain many other parameters without much more effort. We give several examples and the associated estimators. Coverage and convergence speed are explored via simulations, and the results suggest that reliable estimates can be obtained in real-life scenarios.

2018