Application of the estimand framework for an emulated trial using reference based multiple imputation to investigate informative censoring.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
A Atkinson, M Zwahlen, S De Wit, H Furrer, J R Carpenter
{"title":"Application of the estimand framework for an emulated trial using reference based multiple imputation to investigate informative censoring.","authors":"A Atkinson, M Zwahlen, S De Wit, H Furrer, J R Carpenter","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02364-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The ICH E9 (R1) addendum on Estimands and Sensitivity analysis in Clinical trials proposes a framework for the design and analysis of clinical trials aimed at improving clarity around the definition of the targeted treatment effect (the estimand) of a study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We adopt the estimand framework in the context of a study using \"trial emulation\" to estimate the risk of pneumocystis pneumonia, an opportunistic disease contracted by people living with HIV and AIDS having a weakened immune system, when considering two antibiotic treatment regimes for stopping antibiotic prophylaxis treatment against this disease. A \"while on treatment\" strategy has been implemented for post-randomisation (intercurrent) events. We then perform a sensitivity analysis using reference based multiple imputation to model a scenario in which patients lost to follow-up stop taking prophylaxis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary analysis indicated a protective effect for the new regime which used viral suppression as prophylaxis stopping criteria (hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval [0.69, 0.89], p < 0.001). For the sensitivity analysis, when we apply the \"jump to off prophylaxis\" approach, the hazard ratio is almost the same compared to that from the primary analysis (HR 0.80 [0.69, 0.95], p = 0.009). The sensitivity analysis confirmed that the new regime exhibits a clear improvement over the existing guidelines for PcP prophylaxis when those lost to follow-up \"jump to off prophylaxis\".</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our application using reference based multiple imputation demonstrates the method's flexibility and simplicity for sensitivity analyses in the context of the estimand framework for (emulated) trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"245"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487792/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02364-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The ICH E9 (R1) addendum on Estimands and Sensitivity analysis in Clinical trials proposes a framework for the design and analysis of clinical trials aimed at improving clarity around the definition of the targeted treatment effect (the estimand) of a study.

Methods: We adopt the estimand framework in the context of a study using "trial emulation" to estimate the risk of pneumocystis pneumonia, an opportunistic disease contracted by people living with HIV and AIDS having a weakened immune system, when considering two antibiotic treatment regimes for stopping antibiotic prophylaxis treatment against this disease. A "while on treatment" strategy has been implemented for post-randomisation (intercurrent) events. We then perform a sensitivity analysis using reference based multiple imputation to model a scenario in which patients lost to follow-up stop taking prophylaxis.

Results: The primary analysis indicated a protective effect for the new regime which used viral suppression as prophylaxis stopping criteria (hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval [0.69, 0.89], p < 0.001). For the sensitivity analysis, when we apply the "jump to off prophylaxis" approach, the hazard ratio is almost the same compared to that from the primary analysis (HR 0.80 [0.69, 0.95], p = 0.009). The sensitivity analysis confirmed that the new regime exhibits a clear improvement over the existing guidelines for PcP prophylaxis when those lost to follow-up "jump to off prophylaxis".

Conclusions: Our application using reference based multiple imputation demonstrates the method's flexibility and simplicity for sensitivity analyses in the context of the estimand framework for (emulated) trials.

使用基于参照的多重估算,将估计值框架应用于模拟试验,以调查信息普查。
背景:ICH E9 (R1)增编《临床试验中的估计指标和敏感性分析》提出了一个临床试验设计和分析框架,旨在提高研究目标治疗效果(估计指标)定义的清晰度:我们在一项采用 "试验仿真 "方法的研究中采用了估计值框架,以估计肺孢子菌肺炎的风险。肺孢子菌肺炎是一种由免疫系统较弱的艾滋病病毒感染者和艾滋病患者感染的机会性疾病,当考虑采用两种抗生素治疗方案来停止抗生素预防性治疗时,会对这种疾病产生影响。针对随机后(并发症)事件,我们采用了 "治疗期间 "策略。然后,我们进行了一项敏感性分析,使用基于参考的多重归因法,对失去随访的患者停止预防性治疗的情况进行建模:主要分析表明,以病毒抑制作为预防性停药标准的新方案具有保护作用(危险比 (HR) 0.78,95% 置信区间 [0.69,0.89],p 结论:我们采用了基于参照的多重归因方法:我们使用基于参照的多重估算方法证明了该方法在(模拟)试验的估计值框架下进行敏感性分析时的灵活性和简便性。
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
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
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