A Causal Mediation Approach to Account for Interaction of Treatment and Intercurrent Events: Using Hypothetical Strategy.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Kunpeng Wu, Xiangliang Zhang, Meng Zheng, Jianghui Zhang, Wen Chen
{"title":"A Causal Mediation Approach to Account for Interaction of Treatment and Intercurrent Events: Using Hypothetical Strategy.","authors":"Kunpeng Wu, Xiangliang Zhang, Meng Zheng, Jianghui Zhang, Wen Chen","doi":"10.1002/sim.10212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Hypothetical strategy is a common strategy for handling intercurrent events (IEs). No current guideline or study considers treatment-IE interaction to target the estimand in any one IE-handling strategy. Based on the hypothetical strategy, we aimed to (1) assess the performance of three estimators with different considerations for the treatment-IE interaction in a simulation and (2) compare the estimation of these estimators in a real trial. Simulation data were generalized based on realistic clinical trials of Alzheimer's disease. The estimand of interest was the effect of treatment with no IE occurring under the hypothetical strategy. Three estimators, namely, G-estimation with and without interaction and IE-ignored estimation, were compared in scenarios where the treatment-IE interaction effect was set as -50% to 50% of the main effect. Bias was the key performance measure. The real case was derived from a randomized trial of methadone maintenance treatment. Only G-estimation with interaction exhibited unbiased estimations regardless of the existence, direction or magnitude of the treatment-IE interaction in those scenarios. Neglecting the interaction and ignoring the IE would introduce a bias as large as 0.093 and 0.241 (true value, -1.561) if the interaction effect existed. In the real case, compared with G-estimation with interaction, G-estimation without interaction and IE-ignored estimation increased the estimand of interest by 33.55% and 34.36%, respectively. This study highlights the importance of considering treatment-IE interaction in the estimand framework. In practice, it would be better to include the interaction in the estimator by default.</p>","PeriodicalId":21879,"journal":{"name":"Statistics in Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistics in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.10212","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Hypothetical strategy is a common strategy for handling intercurrent events (IEs). No current guideline or study considers treatment-IE interaction to target the estimand in any one IE-handling strategy. Based on the hypothetical strategy, we aimed to (1) assess the performance of three estimators with different considerations for the treatment-IE interaction in a simulation and (2) compare the estimation of these estimators in a real trial. Simulation data were generalized based on realistic clinical trials of Alzheimer's disease. The estimand of interest was the effect of treatment with no IE occurring under the hypothetical strategy. Three estimators, namely, G-estimation with and without interaction and IE-ignored estimation, were compared in scenarios where the treatment-IE interaction effect was set as -50% to 50% of the main effect. Bias was the key performance measure. The real case was derived from a randomized trial of methadone maintenance treatment. Only G-estimation with interaction exhibited unbiased estimations regardless of the existence, direction or magnitude of the treatment-IE interaction in those scenarios. Neglecting the interaction and ignoring the IE would introduce a bias as large as 0.093 and 0.241 (true value, -1.561) if the interaction effect existed. In the real case, compared with G-estimation with interaction, G-estimation without interaction and IE-ignored estimation increased the estimand of interest by 33.55% and 34.36%, respectively. This study highlights the importance of considering treatment-IE interaction in the estimand framework. In practice, it would be better to include the interaction in the estimator by default.

解释治疗与并发症相互作用的因果中介方法:使用假设策略。
假设策略是处理并发症(IE)的常用策略。目前还没有任何指南或研究将治疗与 IE 的交互作用作为任何一种 IE 处理策略的估计目标。基于假设策略,我们的目标是:(1)在模拟试验中评估三种不同考虑治疗-IE交互作用的估算器的性能;(2)在实际试验中比较这些估算器的估算结果。模拟数据是根据阿尔茨海默病的实际临床试验归纳出来的。我们感兴趣的估计指标是假设策略下未发生 IE 的治疗效果。在将治疗-IE交互效应设定为主效应的-50%至50%的情况下,比较了三种估计方法,即有交互效应和无交互效应的G估计以及忽略IE的估计。偏差是衡量性能的关键指标。实际案例来自美沙酮维持治疗的随机试验。在这些情况下,无论治疗-IE 交互作用是否存在、方向或大小如何,只有具有交互作用的 G-估计法才显示出无偏估计。如果存在交互作用,忽略交互作用和忽略 IE 会带来高达 0.093 和 0.241 的偏差(真实值为-1.561)。在实际情况中,与有交互作用的 G 估计相比,无交互作用的 G 估计和忽略 IE 的估计分别增加了 33.55% 和 34.36%。这项研究强调了在估计值框架中考虑治疗与 IE 交互作用的重要性。在实践中,最好默认将交互作用纳入估算中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Statistics in Medicine
Statistics in Medicine 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
334
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal aims to influence practice in medicine and its associated sciences through the publication of papers on statistical and other quantitative methods. Papers will explain new methods and demonstrate their application, preferably through a substantive, real, motivating example or a comprehensive evaluation based on an illustrative example. Alternatively, papers will report on case-studies where creative use or technical generalizations of established methodology is directed towards a substantive application. Reviews of, and tutorials on, general topics relevant to the application of statistics to medicine will also be published. The main criteria for publication are appropriateness of the statistical methods to a particular medical problem and clarity of exposition. Papers with primarily mathematical content will be excluded. The journal aims to enhance communication between statisticians, clinicians and medical researchers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信