Literature DB >> 25416688

Adjusting for treatment switching in randomised controlled trials - A simulation study and a simplified two-stage method.

Nicholas R Latimer1, K R Abrams2, P C Lambert2,3, M J Crowther2, A J Wailoo1, J P Morden4, R L Akehurst1, M J Campbell1.   

Abstract

Estimates of the overall survival benefit of new cancer treatments are often confounded by treatment switching in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) - whereby patients randomised to the control group are permitted to switch onto the experimental treatment upon disease progression. In health technology assessment, estimates of the unconfounded overall survival benefit associated with the new treatment are needed. Several switching adjustment methods have been advocated in the literature, some of which have been used in health technology assessment. However, it is unclear which methods are likely to produce least bias in realistic RCT-based scenarios. We simulated RCTs in which switching, associated with patient prognosis, was permitted. Treatment effect size and time dependency, switching proportions and disease severity were varied across scenarios. We assessed the performance of alternative adjustment methods based upon bias, coverage and mean squared error, related to the estimation of true restricted mean survival in the absence of switching in the control group. We found that when the treatment effect was not time-dependent, rank preserving structural failure time models (RPSFTM) and iterative parameter estimation methods produced low levels of bias. However, in the presence of a time-dependent treatment effect, these methods produced higher levels of bias, similar to those produced by an inverse probability of censoring weights method. The inverse probability of censoring weights and structural nested models produced high levels of bias when switching proportions exceeded 85%. A simplified two-stage Weibull method produced low bias across all scenarios and provided the treatment switching mechanism is suitable, represents an appropriate adjustment method.

Entities:  

Keywords:  health technology assessment; inverse probability of censoring weights; prediction; survival analysis; time-to-event outcomes; treatment crossover; treatment switching

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25416688     DOI: 10.1177/0962280214557578

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  22 in total

1.  Adjusting for the Confounding Effects of Treatment Switching-The BREAK-3 Trial: Dabrafenib Versus Dacarbazine.

Authors:  Nicholas R Latimer; Keith R Abrams; Mayur M Amonkar; Ceilidh Stapelkamp; R Suzanne Swann
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2015-06-03

2.  Brentuximab Vedotin Plus CHP in Frontline sALCL: Adjusted Estimates of Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness Removing the Effects of Re-Treatment with Brentuximab Vedotin.

Authors:  Holly Cranmer; David Trueman; Elise Evers; Fionn Woodcock; Tanja Podkonjak
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2022-09-04

3.  rpsftm: An R Package for Rank Preserving Structural Failure Time Models.

Authors:  Annabel Allison; Ian R White; Simon Bond
Journal:  R J       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 3.984

Review 4.  Mogamulizumab for Previously Treated Mycosis Fungoides and Sézary Syndrome: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

Authors:  Sabine E Grimm; Willem Witlox; Robert Wolff; Annette Chalker; Mickael Hiligsmann; Ben Wijnen; Charlotte Ahmadu; Steve Ryder; Nigel Armstrong; Steven Duffy; Isabel Syndikus; Jos Kleijnen; Manuela A Joore
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 4.558

5.  Adjusting for treatment switching in the METRIC study shows further improved overall survival with trametinib compared with chemotherapy.

Authors:  Nicholas R Latimer; Helen Bell; Keith R Abrams; Mayur M Amonkar; Michelle Casey
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2016-01-27       Impact factor: 4.452

6.  Adjusting Overall Survival Estimates after Treatment Switching: a Case Study in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Konstantina Skaltsa; Cristina Ivanescu; Shevani Naidoo; Stefan Holmstrom; Nicholas R Latimer
Journal:  Target Oncol       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.493

Review 7.  Methods for time-varying exposure related problems in pharmacoepidemiology: An overview.

Authors:  Laura Pazzagli; Marie Linder; Mingliang Zhang; Emese Vago; Paul Stang; David Myers; Morten Andersen; Shahram Bahmanyar
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 2.890

8.  Methods for estimating complier average causal effects for cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  K DiazOrdaz; A J Franchini; R Grieve
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 2.483

9.  Adjustment for treatment changes in epilepsy trials: A comparison of causal methods for time-to-event outcomes.

Authors:  Susanna Dodd; Paula Williamson; Ian R White
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2017-11-08       Impact factor: 3.021

10.  Estimating the treatment effect in patients with gastric cancer in the presence of noncompliance.

Authors:  Malihe Safari; Hossein Mahjub; Habib Esmaeili; Sanambar Sadighi
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench       Date:  2021
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.