Statistical Methods to Adjust for Treatment Switching in Real-World Clinical Studies: A Scoping Review and Descriptive Comparison.

IF 5.5 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Romain Jonathan Collet, Ângela Jornada Ben, Anita Natalia Varga, Frank van Leth, Mohamed El Alili, Jonas Esser, Judith Ekkina Bosmans, Johanna Maria van Dongen
{"title":"Statistical Methods to Adjust for Treatment Switching in Real-World Clinical Studies: A Scoping Review and Descriptive Comparison.","authors":"Romain Jonathan Collet, Ângela Jornada Ben, Anita Natalia Varga, Frank van Leth, Mohamed El Alili, Jonas Esser, Judith Ekkina Bosmans, Johanna Maria van Dongen","doi":"10.1002/cpt.70013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Real-world data from sources, such as patient registries and electronic health records, can complement randomized controlled trials by providing timely, generalizable insights that better reflect routine clinical practice. However, the absence of randomization can introduce bias, particularly when treatment switching-defined as deviation from or discontinuation of the initial treatment-is influenced by time-varying confounders, that is, variables that are associated with both treatment decisions and outcomes over time. This study presents a comprehensive overview of statistical methods used to adjust for treatment switching in real-world studies to improve causal inference. We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase for studies comparing at least two statistical methods for adjusting for treatment switching, from inception to December 2024. Forty-five studies were included, identifying four main categories of methods: (1) traditional approaches (intention-to-treat, per-protocol, as-treated, repeated measures); (2) propensity score-based methods (adjustment, matching, marginal structural models); (3) g-methods other than marginal structural models (g-computation, structural nested models, longitudinal targeted maximum likelihood estimation); (4) methods addressing unmeasured confounding (regression calibration, instrumental variables). Traditional methods are straightforward, but often yield biased estimates in the presence of treatment switching. Advanced methods, such as g-methods, are designed to adjust for time-varying confounding and can produce less biased estimates, though they require complex modeling. Instrumental variables and regression calibration relax the assumption of no unmeasured confounding, but rely on strong, often untestable conditions. By evaluating each method's assumptions, strengths, and limitations, we support applied researchers in selecting appropriate methods to strengthen causal inference in real-world studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":153,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.70013","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Real-world data from sources, such as patient registries and electronic health records, can complement randomized controlled trials by providing timely, generalizable insights that better reflect routine clinical practice. However, the absence of randomization can introduce bias, particularly when treatment switching-defined as deviation from or discontinuation of the initial treatment-is influenced by time-varying confounders, that is, variables that are associated with both treatment decisions and outcomes over time. This study presents a comprehensive overview of statistical methods used to adjust for treatment switching in real-world studies to improve causal inference. We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase for studies comparing at least two statistical methods for adjusting for treatment switching, from inception to December 2024. Forty-five studies were included, identifying four main categories of methods: (1) traditional approaches (intention-to-treat, per-protocol, as-treated, repeated measures); (2) propensity score-based methods (adjustment, matching, marginal structural models); (3) g-methods other than marginal structural models (g-computation, structural nested models, longitudinal targeted maximum likelihood estimation); (4) methods addressing unmeasured confounding (regression calibration, instrumental variables). Traditional methods are straightforward, but often yield biased estimates in the presence of treatment switching. Advanced methods, such as g-methods, are designed to adjust for time-varying confounding and can produce less biased estimates, though they require complex modeling. Instrumental variables and regression calibration relax the assumption of no unmeasured confounding, but rely on strong, often untestable conditions. By evaluating each method's assumptions, strengths, and limitations, we support applied researchers in selecting appropriate methods to strengthen causal inference in real-world studies.

在真实世界临床研究中调整治疗转换的统计方法:范围回顾和描述性比较。
来自患者登记和电子健康记录等来源的真实世界数据可以提供及时的、可概括的见解,从而更好地反映常规临床实践,从而补充随机对照试验。然而,缺乏随机化可能会引入偏倚,特别是当治疗切换(定义为偏离或停止初始治疗)受到时变混杂因素的影响时,即随着时间的推移,与治疗决策和结果相关的变量。本研究全面概述了用于调整现实世界研究中治疗转换的统计方法,以提高因果推理。我们系统地检索了MEDLINE和Embase,从开始到2024年12月,对至少两种调整治疗切换的统计方法进行比较的研究。纳入45项研究,确定了四大类方法:(1)传统方法(意向治疗、按方案治疗、按治疗、重复测量);(2)基于倾向得分的方法(调整、匹配、边际结构模型);(3)边际结构模型以外的g方法(g计算、结构嵌套模型、纵向目标最大似然估计);(4)处理不可测混杂因素(回归校准、工具变量)的方法。传统的方法是直接的,但在治疗转换的情况下往往产生有偏差的估计。先进的方法,如g方法,旨在调整时变混淆,可以产生较少的偏差估计,尽管它们需要复杂的建模。工具变量和回归校准放宽了没有未测量混淆的假设,但依赖于强大的,通常是不可测试的条件。通过评估每种方法的假设、优势和局限性,我们支持应用研究人员在现实世界的研究中选择适当的方法来加强因果推理。
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
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
7.50%
发文量
290
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (CPT) is the authoritative cross-disciplinary journal in experimental and clinical medicine devoted to publishing advances in the nature, action, efficacy, and evaluation of therapeutics. CPT welcomes original Articles in the emerging areas of translational, predictive and personalized medicine; new therapeutic modalities including gene and cell therapies; pharmacogenomics, proteomics and metabolomics; bioinformation and applied systems biology complementing areas of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, human investigation and clinical trials, pharmacovigilence, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacometrics, and population pharmacology.
×
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