Testing for treatment effect twice using internal and external controls in clinical trials.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS
Journal of Causal Inference Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-07 DOI:10.1515/jci-2022-0018
Yanyao Yi, Ying Zhang, Yu Du, Ting Ye
{"title":"Testing for treatment effect twice using internal and external controls in clinical trials.","authors":"Yanyao Yi, Ying Zhang, Yu Du, Ting Ye","doi":"10.1515/jci-2022-0018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Leveraging external controls - relevant individual patient data under control from external trials or real-world data - has the potential to reduce the cost of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) while increasing the proportion of trial patients given access to novel treatments. However, due to lack of randomization, RCT patients and external controls may differ with respect to covariates that may or may not have been measured. Hence, after controlling for measured covariates, for instance by matching, testing for treatment effect using external controls may still be subject to unmeasured biases. In this article, we propose a sensitivity analysis approach to quantify the magnitude of unmeasured bias that would be needed to alter the study conclusion that presumed no unmeasured biases are introduced by employing external controls. Whether leveraging external controls increases power or not depends on the interplay between sample sizes and the magnitude of treatment effect and unmeasured biases, which may be difficult to anticipate. This motivates a combined testing procedure that performs two highly correlated analyses, one with and one without external controls, with a small correction for multiple testing using the joint distribution of the two test statistics. The combined test provides a new method of sensitivity analysis designed for data fusion problems, which anchors at the unbiased analysis based on RCT only and spends a small proportion of the type I error to also test using the external controls. In this way, if leveraging external controls increases power, the power gain compared to the analysis based on RCT only can be substantial; if not, the power loss is small. The proposed method is evaluated in theory and power calculations, and applied to a real trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":48576,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Causal Inference","volume":"11 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13309237/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Causal Inference","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jci-2022-0018","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Leveraging external controls - relevant individual patient data under control from external trials or real-world data - has the potential to reduce the cost of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) while increasing the proportion of trial patients given access to novel treatments. However, due to lack of randomization, RCT patients and external controls may differ with respect to covariates that may or may not have been measured. Hence, after controlling for measured covariates, for instance by matching, testing for treatment effect using external controls may still be subject to unmeasured biases. In this article, we propose a sensitivity analysis approach to quantify the magnitude of unmeasured bias that would be needed to alter the study conclusion that presumed no unmeasured biases are introduced by employing external controls. Whether leveraging external controls increases power or not depends on the interplay between sample sizes and the magnitude of treatment effect and unmeasured biases, which may be difficult to anticipate. This motivates a combined testing procedure that performs two highly correlated analyses, one with and one without external controls, with a small correction for multiple testing using the joint distribution of the two test statistics. The combined test provides a new method of sensitivity analysis designed for data fusion problems, which anchors at the unbiased analysis based on RCT only and spends a small proportion of the type I error to also test using the external controls. In this way, if leveraging external controls increases power, the power gain compared to the analysis based on RCT only can be substantial; if not, the power loss is small. The proposed method is evaluated in theory and power calculations, and applied to a real trial.

临床试验中采用内外对照两次检测治疗效果。
利用外部控制——来自外部试验或真实世界数据控制下的相关个体患者数据——有可能降低随机对照试验(rct)的成本,同时增加试验患者获得新治疗的比例。然而,由于缺乏随机化,RCT患者和外部对照可能在可能测量或可能未测量的协变量方面有所不同。因此,在控制了测量的协变量之后,例如通过匹配,使用外部控制测试治疗效果可能仍然受到未测量偏差的影响。在这篇文章中,我们提出了一种敏感性分析方法来量化未测量偏差的大小,这将需要改变研究结论,即假设没有使用外部控制引入未测量偏差。利用外部控制是否会增加功效取决于样本量和治疗效果的大小以及未测量的偏差之间的相互作用,这可能很难预测。这激发了执行两个高度相关分析的组合测试过程,一个有外部控制,一个没有外部控制,使用两个测试统计的联合分布对多个测试进行小的校正。该组合检验为数据融合问题提供了一种新的灵敏度分析方法,该方法仅以基于RCT的无偏分析为基础,并将一小部分I型误差用于使用外部控制的检验。通过这种方式,如果利用外部控制增加功率,那么与仅基于RCT的分析相比,功率增益可能是可观的;如果没有,则功率损耗小。对该方法进行了理论和功率计算,并应用于实际试验。
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
Journal of Causal Inference
Journal of Causal Inference Decision Sciences-Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
14.30%
发文量
15
审稿时长
86 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Causal Inference (JCI) publishes papers on theoretical and applied causal research across the range of academic disciplines that use quantitative tools to study causality.
×
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