Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37277978›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2023

Handling intercurrent events and missing data in non-inferiority trials using the estimand framework: A tuberculosis case study.

Sunita Rehal, Suzie Cro, Patrick Pj Phillips, Katherine Fielding, James R Carpenter

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Pharmaceutical statistics
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sunita RehalGlaxoSmithKline, Middlesex, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2578-5778
Suzie CroImperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Patrick Pj PhillipsUCSF Center for Tuberculosis, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6336-7024
Katherine FieldingLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
James R CarpenterLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBGlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) · GBImperial College London · GBUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Department of Health NIHR300593Medical Research Council 1546500Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/07
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe ICH E9 addendum outlining the estimand framework for clinical trials was published in 2019 but provides limited guidance around how to handle intercurrent events for non-inferiority studies. Once an estimand is defined, it is also unclear how to deal with missing values using principled analyses for non-inferiority studies.

methodsUsing a tuberculosis clinical trial as a case study, we propose a primary estimand, and an additional estimand suitable for non-inferiority studies. For estimation, multiple imputation methods that align with the estimands for both primary and sensitivity analysis are proposed. We demonstrate estimation methods using the twofold fully conditional specification multiple imputation algorithm and then extend and use reference-based multiple imputation for a binary outcome to target the relevant estimands, proposing sensitivity analyses under each. We compare the results from using these multiple imputation methods with those from the original study.

resultsConsistent with the ICH E9 addendum, estimands can be constructed for a non-inferiority trial which improves on the per-protocol/intention-to-treat-type analysis population previously advocated, involving respectively a hypothetical or treatment policy strategy to handle relevant intercurrent events. Results from using the 'twofold' multiple imputation approach to estimate the primary hypothetical estimand, and using reference-based methods for an additional treatment policy estimand, including sensitivity analyses to handle the missing data, were consistent with the original study's reported per-protocol and intention-to-treat analysis in failing to demonstrate non-inferiority.

conclusionsUsing carefully constructed estimands and appropriate primary and sensitivity estimators, using all the information available, results in a more principled and statistically rigorous approach to analysis. Doing so provides an accurate interpretation of the estimand.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalResearch DesignAlgorithmsData Interpretation, StatisticalEquivalence Trials as TopicHumansBinary outcomeestimandsintercurrent eventsmissing datamultiple imputationnon-inferiorityreference-based sensitivity analysissensitivity analyses

Identifiers

PMID37277978
PMCPMC10504812
OpenAlexW4379508425

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.