The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

The use of randomisation-based efficacy estimators in non-inferiority trials

The use of randomisation-based efficacy estimators in non-inferiority trials
The use of randomisation-based efficacy estimators in non-inferiority trials
Background: in a non-inferiority (NI) trial, analysis based on the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle is anti-conservative, so current guidelines recommend analysing on a per-protocol (PP) population in addition. However, PP analysis relies on the often implausible assumption of no confounders. Randomisation-based efficacy estimators (RBEEs) allow for treatment non-adherence while maintaining a comparison of randomised groups. Fischer et al. have developed an approach for estimating RBEEs in randomised trials with two active treatments, a common feature of NI trials. The aim of this paper was to demonstrate the use of RBEEs in NI trials using this approach, and to appraise the feasibility of these estimators as the primary analysis in NI trials.

Methods: two NI trials were used. One comparing two different dosing regimens for the maintenance of remission in people with ulcerative colitis (CODA), and the other comparing an orally administered treatment to an intravenously administered treatment in preventing skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (ZICE). Variables that predicted adherence in each of the trial arms, and were also independent of outcome, were sought in each of the studies. Structural mean models (SMMs) were fitted that conditioned on these variables, and the point estimates and confidence intervals compared to that found in the corresponding ITT and PP analyses.

Results: in the CODA study, no variables were found that differentially predicted treatment adherence while remaining independent of outcome. The SMM, using standard methodology, moved the point estimate closer to 0 (no difference between arms) compared to the ITT and PP analyses, but the confidence interval was still within the NI margin, indicating that the conclusions drawn would remain the same. In the ZICE study, cognitive functioning as measured by the corresponding domain of the QLQ-C30, and use of chemotherapy at baseline were both differentially associated with adherence while remaining independent of outcome. However, while the SMM again moved the point estimate closer to 0, the confidence interval was wide, overlapping with any NI margin that could be justified.

Conclusion: deriving RBEEs in NI trials with two active treatments can provide a randomisation-respecting estimate of treatment efficacy that accounts for treatment adherence, is straightforward to implement, but requires thorough planning during the design stage of the study to ensure that strong baseline predictors of treatment are captured. Extension of the approach to handle nonlinear outcome variables is also required.

Trial registration: the CODA study: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00708656. Registered on 8 April 2008. The ZICE study trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00326820. Registered on 16 May 2006.
1745-6215
Gillespie, David
e4a49f65-ac1e-45e6-8d72-d6cc1eaa4b7d
Farewell, Daniel
bb0b8839-4fd9-418d-976f-f732002b2f8d
Barrett-Lee, Peter
628e60f4-39b5-43d5-ac5b-e4f3ab4b4a4b
Casbard, Angela
32e86c77-826c-44ae-b7c3-44680889a0aa
Hawthorne, Anthony Barney
0c99ab79-41e6-465d-8f17-24cdbfb1cd2c
Hurt, Chris
bf8b37a0-8f08-4b47-b3f3-6fc65f7ab87f
Hurt, Chris
56502f49-0d20-4676-b3d0-5cdc914853fd
Murray, Nick
26645049-a8e2-4a41-98e7-59aa8558485d
Probert, Chris
91e230d9-da70-4c55-9f29-c31e3b1742b3
Stenson, Rachel
f19a9fad-93ab-40c2-b553-ddfe4e407f80
Hood, Kerenza
b2ff0226-a6dc-4dac-bf76-a65501354a7d
Gillespie, David
e4a49f65-ac1e-45e6-8d72-d6cc1eaa4b7d
Farewell, Daniel
bb0b8839-4fd9-418d-976f-f732002b2f8d
Barrett-Lee, Peter
628e60f4-39b5-43d5-ac5b-e4f3ab4b4a4b
Casbard, Angela
32e86c77-826c-44ae-b7c3-44680889a0aa
Hawthorne, Anthony Barney
0c99ab79-41e6-465d-8f17-24cdbfb1cd2c
Hurt, Chris
bf8b37a0-8f08-4b47-b3f3-6fc65f7ab87f
Hurt, Chris
56502f49-0d20-4676-b3d0-5cdc914853fd
Murray, Nick
26645049-a8e2-4a41-98e7-59aa8558485d
Probert, Chris
91e230d9-da70-4c55-9f29-c31e3b1742b3
Stenson, Rachel
f19a9fad-93ab-40c2-b553-ddfe4e407f80
Hood, Kerenza
b2ff0226-a6dc-4dac-bf76-a65501354a7d

Gillespie, David, Farewell, Daniel, Barrett-Lee, Peter, Casbard, Angela, Hawthorne, Anthony Barney, Hurt, Chris, Hurt, Chris, Murray, Nick, Probert, Chris, Stenson, Rachel and Hood, Kerenza (2017) The use of randomisation-based efficacy estimators in non-inferiority trials. Trials, 18 (117). (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1837-3).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: in a non-inferiority (NI) trial, analysis based on the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle is anti-conservative, so current guidelines recommend analysing on a per-protocol (PP) population in addition. However, PP analysis relies on the often implausible assumption of no confounders. Randomisation-based efficacy estimators (RBEEs) allow for treatment non-adherence while maintaining a comparison of randomised groups. Fischer et al. have developed an approach for estimating RBEEs in randomised trials with two active treatments, a common feature of NI trials. The aim of this paper was to demonstrate the use of RBEEs in NI trials using this approach, and to appraise the feasibility of these estimators as the primary analysis in NI trials.

Methods: two NI trials were used. One comparing two different dosing regimens for the maintenance of remission in people with ulcerative colitis (CODA), and the other comparing an orally administered treatment to an intravenously administered treatment in preventing skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (ZICE). Variables that predicted adherence in each of the trial arms, and were also independent of outcome, were sought in each of the studies. Structural mean models (SMMs) were fitted that conditioned on these variables, and the point estimates and confidence intervals compared to that found in the corresponding ITT and PP analyses.

Results: in the CODA study, no variables were found that differentially predicted treatment adherence while remaining independent of outcome. The SMM, using standard methodology, moved the point estimate closer to 0 (no difference between arms) compared to the ITT and PP analyses, but the confidence interval was still within the NI margin, indicating that the conclusions drawn would remain the same. In the ZICE study, cognitive functioning as measured by the corresponding domain of the QLQ-C30, and use of chemotherapy at baseline were both differentially associated with adherence while remaining independent of outcome. However, while the SMM again moved the point estimate closer to 0, the confidence interval was wide, overlapping with any NI margin that could be justified.

Conclusion: deriving RBEEs in NI trials with two active treatments can provide a randomisation-respecting estimate of treatment efficacy that accounts for treatment adherence, is straightforward to implement, but requires thorough planning during the design stage of the study to ensure that strong baseline predictors of treatment are captured. Extension of the approach to handle nonlinear outcome variables is also required.

Trial registration: the CODA study: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00708656. Registered on 8 April 2008. The ZICE study trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00326820. Registered on 16 May 2006.

Text
s13063-017-1837-3 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (909kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 13 February 2017
Published date: 9 March 2017

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 488221
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/488221
ISSN: 1745-6215
PURE UUID: 71bb7822-e673-40a9-adfe-3a080bc69d0d
ORCID for Chris Hurt: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1206-8355

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 18 Mar 2024 17:57
Last modified: 23 Mar 2024 03:13

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: David Gillespie
Author: Daniel Farewell
Author: Peter Barrett-Lee
Author: Angela Casbard
Author: Anthony Barney Hawthorne
Author: Chris Hurt ORCID iD
Author: Chris Hurt
Author: Nick Murray
Author: Chris Probert
Author: Rachel Stenson
Author: Kerenza Hood

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×