Search

A number of statistical approaches have been proposed for incorporating supplemental information in randomized clinical trials. Existing methods often compare the marginal treatment effects to evaluate the degree of consistency between sources. Dissimilar marginal treatment effects would either lead to increased bias or down-weighting of the supplemental data. This represents a limitation in the presence of treatment effect heterogeneity, in which case the marginal treatment effect may differ between the sources solely due to differences between the study populations. We introduce the concept of covariate-adjusted exchangeability, in which differences in the marginal treatment effect can be explained by differences in the distributions of the effect modifiers. The potential outcomes framework is used to conceptualize covariate-adjusted and marginal exchangeability. We utilize a linear model and the existing multisource exchangeability models framework to facilitate borrowing when marginal treatment effects are dissimilar but covariate-adjusted exchangeability holds. We investigate the operating characteristics of our method using simulations. We also illustrate our method using data from two clinical trials of very low nicotine content cigarettes. Our method has the ability to incorporate supplemental information in a wider variety of situations than when only marginal exchangeability is considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes indicates that smokers randomized to VLNC cigarettes had significantly lower cigarette use, dependence, and biomarkers of exposure than smokers randomized to normal nicotine content control cigarettes. In these trials, a substantial number of participants did not adhere to their randomized treatment assignment, i.e., they used commercial cigarettes not provided by the trial in place of or in addition to the VLNC cigarettes provided by the trial. As with most RCTs, the analysis of these trials followed the intention-to-treat principle, where participants are analyzed according to their randomized treatment assignment regardless of adherence. Alternately, the analysis of an RCT could focus on the estimation and testing of the causal effect of the intervention, which is the treatment effect if all subjects were to adhere to their randomized treatment assignment. In this commentary, we compare these two approaches, highlighting the important role of causal estimation and inference for evaluating the regulatory effect of a nicotine standard for cigarettes. Additionally, we review the results of the secondary analyses of randomized trials of VLNC cigarettes using causal inference methodology to account for non-adherence to the assigned treatment and discuss the implications for a nicotine standard for cigarettes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Noncompliance or non-adherence to randomized treatment is a common challenge when interpreting data from randomized clinical trials. The effect of an intervention if all participants were forced to comply with the assigned treatment (i.e., the causal effect) is often of primary scientific interest. For example, in trials of very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarettes, policymakers are interested in their effect on smoking behavior if their use were to be compelled by regulation. A variety of statistical methods to estimate the causal effect of an intervention have been proposed, but these methods, including inverse probability of compliance weighted (IPCW) estimators, assume that participants' compliance statuses are reported without error. This is an untenable assumption when compliance is based on self-report. Biomarkers (e.g., nicotine levels in the urine) may provide more reliable indicators of compliance but cannot perfectly discriminate between compliers and non-compliers. However, by modeling the distribution of the biomarker as a mixture distribution and writing the probability of compliance as a function of the mixture components, we show how the probability of compliance can be directly estimated from the data even when compliance status is unknown. To estimate the causal effect, we develop a new approach which re-weights participants by the product of their probability of compliance given the observed data and the inverse probability of compliance given confounders. We show that our proposed estimator is consistent and asymptotically normal and show that in some situations the proposed approach is more efficient than standard IPCW estimators. We demonstrate via simulation that the proposed estimator achieves smaller bias and greater efficiency than ad hoc approaches to estimating the causal effect when compliance is measured with error. We apply our method to data from a recently completed randomized trial of VLNC cigarettes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An individualized treatment rule (ITR) formalizes personalized medicine by assigning treatment as a function of patients' clinical information, which contrasts with a static treatment rule that assigns everyone the same treatment. ITR identification has become a common aim in randomized clinical trials but sample size considerations for this aim are lacking. One approach is to select a sample size that will reliably identify an ITR with a performance close to the theoretical optimal rule. However, this approach could still lead to identifying ITRs that perform worse than the optimal static rule, particularly in the absence of substantial effect heterogeneity. This limitation motivates sample size considerations aimed at reliable identification of a beneficial ITR, which outperforms the optimal static rule, and analysis methods that identify the estimated optimal static rule when there is substantial uncertainty about whether an ITR will improve outcomes. To address these limitations, we propose a sample size approach based on the probability of identifying a beneficial ITR and introduce an approach for selecting the LASSO penalty parameter such that in the absence of treatment effect heterogeneity the estimated optimal static rule is identified with high probability. We apply these approaches to the PLUTO trial aimed at developing methods to assist with smoking cessation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]