[A simulation study for handling two-way treatment switching in rare event scenarios].

Q1 Medicine
W K Wu, Q He, M H Yao, J Y Xu, W Wang, X Sun
{"title":"[A simulation study for handling two-way treatment switching in rare event scenarios].","authors":"W K Wu, Q He, M H Yao, J Y Xu, W Wang, X Sun","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20240522-00295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> Drug safety assessments based on real-world data are often challenged by both treatment switching and rare events. In this study, we used statistical simulations to investigate the effects of switching rates and treatment effects on the statistical performance of commonly used analytical strategies and methods under overlapping scenarios of treatment switching and rare events. <b>Methods:</b> The simulation scenario was set up as a bidirectional treatment switching (allowing the control group to switch to the treatment group and the treatment group to switch to the control group), and the event rates were set at approximately 2%, 5%, and 20%. Different simulation scenarios were generated with sufficient sample size to consider switching rate and relative treatment effect. The simulated datasets were analyzed using three types of analysis strategy, i.e. intention to treat (ITT), per protocol (PP), and as treated (AT). The performance of five indicators, namely percentage bias, mean square error, empirical standard error, coverage, and rejection rate, were compared among the different methods in different scenarios, and recommendations for method selection were given. <b>Results:</b> In terms of analytical strategies and methods, AT analysis were relatively optimal in terms of percentage bias and accuracy, followed by PP analysis and ITT analysis. When the relative treatment effects converged (e.g. <i>HR</i>=1.0), both the ITT analysis and the time-dependent AT approaches (marginal structural model, time-dependent Cox regression model or time-dependent propensity score matching) performed well; when the relative treatment effects were small (e.g. <i>HR</i>=0.8), the marginal structural model was the most optimal; when the relative treatment effects were large (e.g. <i>HR</i>=0.6 or 0.4), the approaches of using a censored treatment for switchers in the AT analysis were more accurate. In addition, the time-dependent AT approaches had the highest rejection rate when there was a difference in treatment effect between the two groups, and the ITT analysis had the lowest rejection rate. <b>Conclusions:</b> For the dual challenges of bidirectional switching and rare events in real-world drug safety evaluations, adequate sample size is a prerequisite for accurate estimation of treatment effects, while switching rates and effect sizes of switched drugs might also affect estimation accuracy. Appropriate strategies and methods should be selected for the analysis. It is necessary to consider whether the event is rare or not, the switching rate and the expected treatment effect size of the two types of treatment to select appropriate analysis strategies and methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":23968,"journal":{"name":"中华流行病学杂志","volume":"46 2","pages":"334-344"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华流行病学杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20240522-00295","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Drug safety assessments based on real-world data are often challenged by both treatment switching and rare events. In this study, we used statistical simulations to investigate the effects of switching rates and treatment effects on the statistical performance of commonly used analytical strategies and methods under overlapping scenarios of treatment switching and rare events. Methods: The simulation scenario was set up as a bidirectional treatment switching (allowing the control group to switch to the treatment group and the treatment group to switch to the control group), and the event rates were set at approximately 2%, 5%, and 20%. Different simulation scenarios were generated with sufficient sample size to consider switching rate and relative treatment effect. The simulated datasets were analyzed using three types of analysis strategy, i.e. intention to treat (ITT), per protocol (PP), and as treated (AT). The performance of five indicators, namely percentage bias, mean square error, empirical standard error, coverage, and rejection rate, were compared among the different methods in different scenarios, and recommendations for method selection were given. Results: In terms of analytical strategies and methods, AT analysis were relatively optimal in terms of percentage bias and accuracy, followed by PP analysis and ITT analysis. When the relative treatment effects converged (e.g. HR=1.0), both the ITT analysis and the time-dependent AT approaches (marginal structural model, time-dependent Cox regression model or time-dependent propensity score matching) performed well; when the relative treatment effects were small (e.g. HR=0.8), the marginal structural model was the most optimal; when the relative treatment effects were large (e.g. HR=0.6 or 0.4), the approaches of using a censored treatment for switchers in the AT analysis were more accurate. In addition, the time-dependent AT approaches had the highest rejection rate when there was a difference in treatment effect between the two groups, and the ITT analysis had the lowest rejection rate. Conclusions: For the dual challenges of bidirectional switching and rare events in real-world drug safety evaluations, adequate sample size is a prerequisite for accurate estimation of treatment effects, while switching rates and effect sizes of switched drugs might also affect estimation accuracy. Appropriate strategies and methods should be selected for the analysis. It is necessary to consider whether the event is rare or not, the switching rate and the expected treatment effect size of the two types of treatment to select appropriate analysis strategies and methods.

[罕见事件情景下处理双向治疗切换的仿真研究]。
目的:基于真实世界数据的药物安全性评估经常受到治疗转换和罕见事件的挑战。在本研究中,我们采用统计模拟的方法研究了在处理切换和罕见事件重叠的情况下,切换率和处理效果对常用分析策略和方法统计性能的影响。方法:模拟场景设置为双向治疗切换(对照组切换到治疗组,治疗组切换到对照组),事件发生率设置为约2%、5%和20%。在足够的样本量下生成不同的模拟场景,以考虑切换率和相对处理效果。模拟数据集使用三种类型的分析策略进行分析,即治疗意图(ITT),每个协议(PP)和治疗(AT)。比较了不同方法在不同情景下的百分比偏差、均方误差、经验标准误差、覆盖率和拒绝率5个指标的表现,并给出了方法选择的建议。结果:在分析策略和方法方面,AT分析在百分比偏差和准确性方面相对最佳,PP分析次之,ITT分析次之。当相对治疗效果趋同(如HR=1.0)时,ITT分析和时变AT方法(边际结构模型、时变Cox回归模型或时变倾向评分匹配)均表现良好;当相对治疗效果较小时(如HR=0.8),边际结构模型最优;当相对治疗效果较大(例如HR=0.6或0.4)时,在AT分析中对转换者使用审查治疗的方法更准确。此外,当两组治疗效果存在差异时,时间依赖性AT方法的排异率最高,ITT分析的排异率最低。结论:面对现实世界药物安全性评价中双向切换和罕见事件的双重挑战,充足的样本量是准确估计治疗效果的前提,而切换药物的切换率和效应大小也可能影响估计的准确性。应该选择合适的策略和方法进行分析。需要综合考虑事件是否罕见、两类治疗的切换率和预期治疗效应大小,选择合适的分析策略和方法。
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
中华流行病学杂志
中华流行病学杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8981
期刊介绍: Chinese Journal of Epidemiology, established in 1981, is an advanced academic periodical in epidemiology and related disciplines in China, which, according to the principle of integrating theory with practice, mainly reports the major progress in epidemiological research. The columns of the journal include commentary, expert forum, original article, field investigation, disease surveillance, laboratory research, clinical epidemiology, basic theory or method and review, etc.  The journal is included by more than ten major biomedical databases and index systems worldwide, such as been indexed in Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central (PMC), Europe PubMed Central, Embase, Chemical Abstract, Chinese Science and Technology Paper and Citation Database (CSTPCD), Chinese core journal essentials overview, Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) core database, Chinese Biological Medical Disc (CBMdisc), and Chinese Medical Citation Index (CMCI), etc. It is one of the core academic journals and carefully selected core journals in preventive and basic medicine in China.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信