Haidong Lu1, Stephen R Cole1, H Irene Hall2, Enrique F Schisterman3, Tiffany L Breger1, Jessie K Edwards1, Daniel Westreich1. 1. 1 Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2. 2 Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. 3 Epidemiology Branch, Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intention-to-treat comparisons of randomized trials provide asymptotically consistent estimators of the effect of treatment assignment, without regard to compliance. However, decision makers often wish to know the effect of a per-protocol comparison. Moreover, decision makers may also wish to know the effect of treatment assignment or treatment protocol in a user-specified target population other than the sample in which the trial was fielded. Here, we aimed to generalize results from the ACTG A5095 trial to the US recently HIV-diagnosed target population. METHODS: We first replicated the published conventional intention-to-treat estimate (2-year risk difference and hazard ratio) comparing a four-drug antiretroviral regimen to a three-drug regimen in the A5095 trial. We then estimated the intention-to-treat effect that accounted for informative dropout and the per-protocol effect that additionally accounted for protocol deviations by constructing inverse probability weights. Furthermore, we employed inverse odds of sampling weights to generalize both intention-to-treat and per-protocol effects to a target population comprising US individuals with HIV diagnosed during 2008-2014. RESULTS: Of 761 subjects in the analysis, 82 dropouts (36 in the three-drug arm and 46 in the four-drug arm) and 59 protocol deviations (25 in the three-drug arm and 34 in the four-drug arm) occurred during the first 2 years of follow-up. A total of 169 subjects incurred virologic failure or death. The 2-year risks were similar both in the trial and in the US HIV-diagnosed target population for estimates from the conventional intention-to-treat, dropout-weighted intention-to-treat, and per-protocol analyses. In the US target population, the 2-year conventional intention-to-treat risk difference (unit: %) for virologic failure or death comparing the four-drug arm to the three-drug arm was -0.4 (95% confidence interval: -6.2, 5.1), while the hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.70, 1.34); the 2-year risk difference was -0.9 (95% confidence interval: -6.9, 5.3) for the dropout-weighted intention-to-treat comparison (hazard ratio = 0.95, 95% confidence interval: 0.68, 1.32) and -0.7 (95% confidence interval: -6.7, 5.5) for the per-protocol comparison (hazard ratio = 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.69, 1.34). CONCLUSION: No benefit of four-drug antiretroviral regimen over three-drug regimen was found from the conventional intention-to-treat, dropout-weighted intention-to-treat or per-protocol estimates in the trial sample or target population.
BACKGROUND: Intention-to-treat comparisons of randomized trials provide asymptotically consistent estimators of the effect of treatment assignment, without regard to compliance. However, decision makers often wish to know the effect of a per-protocol comparison. Moreover, decision makers may also wish to know the effect of treatment assignment or treatment protocol in a user-specified target population other than the sample in which the trial was fielded. Here, we aimed to generalize results from the ACTG A5095 trial to the US recently HIV-diagnosed target population. METHODS: We first replicated the published conventional intention-to-treat estimate (2-year risk difference and hazard ratio) comparing a four-drug antiretroviral regimen to a three-drug regimen in the A5095 trial. We then estimated the intention-to-treat effect that accounted for informative dropout and the per-protocol effect that additionally accounted for protocol deviations by constructing inverse probability weights. Furthermore, we employed inverse odds of sampling weights to generalize both intention-to-treat and per-protocol effects to a target population comprising US individuals with HIV diagnosed during 2008-2014. RESULTS: Of 761 subjects in the analysis, 82 dropouts (36 in the three-drug arm and 46 in the four-drug arm) and 59 protocol deviations (25 in the three-drug arm and 34 in the four-drug arm) occurred during the first 2 years of follow-up. A total of 169 subjects incurred virologic failure or death. The 2-year risks were similar both in the trial and in the US HIV-diagnosed target population for estimates from the conventional intention-to-treat, dropout-weighted intention-to-treat, and per-protocol analyses. In the US target population, the 2-year conventional intention-to-treat risk difference (unit: %) for virologic failure or death comparing the four-drug arm to the three-drug arm was -0.4 (95% confidence interval: -6.2, 5.1), while the hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.70, 1.34); the 2-year risk difference was -0.9 (95% confidence interval: -6.9, 5.3) for the dropout-weighted intention-to-treat comparison (hazard ratio = 0.95, 95% confidence interval: 0.68, 1.32) and -0.7 (95% confidence interval: -6.7, 5.5) for the per-protocol comparison (hazard ratio = 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.69, 1.34). CONCLUSION: No benefit of four-drug antiretroviral regimen over three-drug regimen was found from the conventional intention-to-treat, dropout-weighted intention-to-treat or per-protocol estimates in the trial sample or target population.
Authors: Daniel Westreich; Jessie K Edwards; Catherine R Lesko; Elizabeth Stuart; Stephen R Cole Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-10-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Stacy M Cohen; Kristen Mahle Gray; M Cheryl Bañez Ocfemia; Anna Satcher Johnson; H Irene Hall Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2014 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Ashley L Buchanan; Michael G Hudgens; Stephen R Cole; Katie R Mollan; Paul E Sax; Eric S Daar; Adaora A Adimora; Joseph J Eron; Michael J Mugavero Journal: J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: R Peto; M C Pike; P Armitage; N E Breslow; D R Cox; S V Howard; N Mantel; K McPherson; J Peto; P G Smith Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1977-01 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Haidong Lu; Stephen R Cole; Daniel Westreich; Michael G Hudgens; Adaora A Adimora; Keri N Althoff; Michael J Silverberg; Kate Buchacz; Jun Li; Jessie K Edwards; Peter F Rebeiro; Viviane D Lima; Vincent C Marconi; Timothy R Sterling; Michael A Horberg; M John Gill; Mari M Kitahata; Joseph J Eron; Richard D Moore Journal: AIDS Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 4.632
Authors: Neel M Butala; Eric Secemsky; Dhruv S Kazi; Yang Song; Jordan B Strom; Kamil F Faridi; J Matthew Brennan; Sammy Elmariah; Changyu Shen; Robert W Yeh Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 11.075
Authors: Haidong Lu; Stephen R Cole; Daniel Westreich; Michael G Hudgens; Adaora A Adimora; Keri N Althoff; Michael J Silverberg; Kate Buchacz; Jun Li; Jessie K Edwards; Peter F Rebeiro; Viviane D Lima; Vincent C Marconi; Timothy R Sterling; Michael A Horberg; M John Gill; Mari M Kitahata; Joseph J Eron; Richard D Moore Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 9.079