Eleanor J Murray1, Miguel A Hernán2. 1. Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA emurray@mail.harvard.edu. 2. Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In many randomized controlled trials, patients and doctors are more interested in the per-protocol effect than in the intention-to-treat effect. However, valid estimation of the per-protocol effect generally requires adjustment for prognostic factors associated with adherence. These adherence adjustments have been strongly questioned in the clinical trials community, especially after 1980 when the Coronary Drug Project team found that adherers to placebo had lower 5-year mortality than non-adherers to placebo. METHODS: We replicated the original Coronary Drug Project findings from 1980 and re-analyzed the Coronary Drug Project data using technical and conceptual developments that have become established since 1980. Specifically, we used logistic models for binary outcomes, decoupled the definition of adherence from loss to follow-up, and adjusted for pre-randomization covariates via standardization and for post-randomization covariates via inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: The original Coronary Drug Project analysis reported a difference in 5-year mortality between adherers and non-adherers in the placebo arm of 9.4 percentage points. Using modern approaches, we found that this difference was reduced to 2.5 (95% confidence interval: -2.1 to 7.0). CONCLUSION: Valid estimation of per-protocol effects may be possible in randomized clinical trials when analysts use appropriate methods to adjust for post-randomization variables.
BACKGROUND: In many randomized controlled trials, patients and doctors are more interested in the per-protocol effect than in the intention-to-treat effect. However, valid estimation of the per-protocol effect generally requires adjustment for prognostic factors associated with adherence. These adherence adjustments have been strongly questioned in the clinical trials community, especially after 1980 when the Coronary Drug Project team found that adherers to placebo had lower 5-year mortality than non-adherers to placebo. METHODS: We replicated the original Coronary Drug Project findings from 1980 and re-analyzed the Coronary Drug Project data using technical and conceptual developments that have become established since 1980. Specifically, we used logistic models for binary outcomes, decoupled the definition of adherence from loss to follow-up, and adjusted for pre-randomization covariates via standardization and for post-randomization covariates via inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: The original Coronary Drug Project analysis reported a difference in 5-year mortality between adherers and non-adherers in the placebo arm of 9.4 percentage points. Using modern approaches, we found that this difference was reduced to 2.5 (95% confidence interval: -2.1 to 7.0). CONCLUSION: Valid estimation of per-protocol effects may be possible in randomized clinical trials when analysts use appropriate methods to adjust for post-randomization variables.
Authors: Øyvind Holme; Magnus Løberg; Mette Kalager; Michael Bretthauer; Miguel A Hernán; Eline Aas; Tor J Eide; Eva Skovlund; Jørn Schneede; Kjell Magne Tveit; Geir Hoff Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Roderick J Little; Ralph D'Agostino; Michael L Cohen; Kay Dickersin; Scott S Emerson; John T Farrar; Constantine Frangakis; Joseph W Hogan; Geert Molenberghs; Susan A Murphy; James D Neaton; Andrea Rotnitzky; Daniel Scharfstein; Weichung J Shih; Jay P Siegel; Hal Stern Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-10-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lauren E Cain; Roger Logan; James M Robins; Jonathan A C Sterne; Caroline Sabin; Loveleen Bansi; Amy Justice; Joseph Goulet; Ard van Sighem; Frank de Wolf; Heiner C Bucher; Viktor von Wyl; Anna Esteve; Jordi Casabona; Julia del Amo; Santiago Moreno; Remonie Seng; Laurence Meyer; Santiago Perez-Hoyos; Roberto Muga; Sara Lodi; Emilie Lanoy; Dominique Costagliola; Miguel A Hernan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-04-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ian J Saldanha; Tianjing Li; Cui Yang; Jill Owczarzak; Paula R Williamson; Kay Dickersin Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Sara Lodi; Shweta Sharma; Jens D Lundgren; Andrew N Phillips; Stephen R Cole; Roger Logan; Brian K Agan; Abdel Babiker; Hartwig Klinker; Haitao Chu; Matthew Law; James D Neaton; Miguel A Hernán Journal: AIDS Date: 2016-11-13 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Eleanor J Murray; Ellen C Caniglia; Sonja A Swanson; Sonia Hernández-Díaz; Miguel A Hernán Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2018-06-30 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Haidong Lu; Stephen R Cole; H Irene Hall; Enrique F Schisterman; Tiffany L Breger; Jessie K Edwards; Daniel Westreich Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Darren S Thomas; Aaron Y Lee; Philipp L Müller; Roy Schwartz; Abraham Olvera-Barrios; Alasdair N Warwick; Praven J Patel; Tjebo F C Heeren; Catherine Egan; Paul Taylor; Adnan Tufail Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Jacqueline E Rudolph; Ashley I Naimi; Daniel J Westreich; Edward H Kennedy; Enrique F Schisterman Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 4.860