Potential bias in efficacy estimates due to intercurrent treatment discontinuations.

IF 4.6
Bjorn Redfors, Jacky Choi, Mario Gaudino, Harmony R Reynolds, Judy Zhong
{"title":"Potential bias in efficacy estimates due to intercurrent treatment discontinuations.","authors":"Bjorn Redfors, Jacky Choi, Mario Gaudino, Harmony R Reynolds, Judy Zhong","doi":"10.1093/ehjqcco/qcag084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Treatment discontinuation is a common intercurrent event in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that can bias treatment effect estimates, yet it remains under recognized and inconsistently addressed. Antithrombotic trials provide a relevant case, as bleeding-related discontinuation is common and more often occur in patients at increased risk also for ischaemic events.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>We reviewed large antithrombotic RCTs published in The New England Journal of Medicine (2020-2025) to assess reporting and analytic handling of treatment discontinuation. We also conducted simulations to examine how discontinuation patterns influence efficacy estimates under three scenarios: discontinuation only in the treatment arm, in both arms with similar patterns, and in both arms but outcome-associated only in the treatment arm. Treatment policy (intention-to-treat) and while-on-treatment strategies were compared within the ICH E9(R1) framework. Among fourteen reviewed antithrombotic RCTs, about one-third of patients discontinued treatment in trials with more than 6 months follow-up, with higher imbalance in open-label studies. Over half of discontinuations were safety-related, yet timing and temporary interruptions were rarely reported. Most reported both ITT and per-protocol (PP) analyses, with PP assuming non-informative censoring and yielding larger efficacy estimates. In simulations, treatment policy and while-on-treatment strategies were biased when discontinuation was outcome-associated, while Simon-Makuch curves helped identify prognostic discontinuation differing by treatment arm.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Discontinuation is common, prognostically meaningful, and often oversimplified in analysis, threatening the validity of RCT findings. Explicitly addressing discontinuation as an intercurrent event within the estimand framework, along with stratified outcome curves, can improve interpretation and support more robust trial conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":520616,"journal":{"name":"European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes","volume":" ","pages":"1011-1022"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13579332/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcag084","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Treatment discontinuation is a common intercurrent event in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that can bias treatment effect estimates, yet it remains under recognized and inconsistently addressed. Antithrombotic trials provide a relevant case, as bleeding-related discontinuation is common and more often occur in patients at increased risk also for ischaemic events.

Methods and results: We reviewed large antithrombotic RCTs published in The New England Journal of Medicine (2020-2025) to assess reporting and analytic handling of treatment discontinuation. We also conducted simulations to examine how discontinuation patterns influence efficacy estimates under three scenarios: discontinuation only in the treatment arm, in both arms with similar patterns, and in both arms but outcome-associated only in the treatment arm. Treatment policy (intention-to-treat) and while-on-treatment strategies were compared within the ICH E9(R1) framework. Among fourteen reviewed antithrombotic RCTs, about one-third of patients discontinued treatment in trials with more than 6 months follow-up, with higher imbalance in open-label studies. Over half of discontinuations were safety-related, yet timing and temporary interruptions were rarely reported. Most reported both ITT and per-protocol (PP) analyses, with PP assuming non-informative censoring and yielding larger efficacy estimates. In simulations, treatment policy and while-on-treatment strategies were biased when discontinuation was outcome-associated, while Simon-Makuch curves helped identify prognostic discontinuation differing by treatment arm.

Conclusion: Discontinuation is common, prognostically meaningful, and often oversimplified in analysis, threatening the validity of RCT findings. Explicitly addressing discontinuation as an intercurrent event within the estimand framework, along with stratified outcome curves, can improve interpretation and support more robust trial conclusions.

因停药而导致疗效评估的潜在偏差。
背景:在随机临床试验(rct)中,治疗中断是一种常见的并发事件,可能会对治疗效果的估计产生偏倚,但它仍然没有得到充分认识,也没有得到一致的解决。抗血栓试验提供了一个相关的案例,因为出血相关性停药是常见的,而且更常发生在缺血性事件风险增加的患者中。方法:我们回顾了发表在《新英格兰医学杂志》(2020-2025)上的大型抗血栓随机对照试验,以评估停药的报告和分析处理。我们还进行了模拟,以检查停药模式在三种情况下如何影响疗效估计:仅在治疗组停药,在两组均有相似的停药模式,以及在两组均有停药但仅在治疗组有结果相关。在ICH E9(R1)框架内比较了治疗政策(意向治疗)和治疗期间策略。结果:在回顾的14项抗血栓随机对照试验中,大约三分之一的患者在随访超过6个月的试验中停止治疗,在开放标签研究中不平衡程度更高。超过一半的中断与安全有关,但时间和暂时中断很少报道。大多数报告ITT和每个方案(PP)分析,PP假设非信息审查和产生更大的功效估计。在模拟中,当停药与结果相关时,治疗政策和同时治疗策略是有偏差的,而Simon-Makuch曲线有助于识别不同治疗组的预后停药。结论:停药是常见的,具有预后意义,但在分析中往往过于简单化,威胁到RCT结果的有效性。明确地将停药作为估计框架内的并发事件处理,以及分层的结果曲线,可以改善解释并支持更可靠的试验结论。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
小红书