Bell James, Drury Thomas, Mütze Tobias, Pipper Christian Bressen, Guizzaro Lorenzo, Mitroiu Marian, Rantell Khadija Rerhou, Wolbers Marcel, Wright David
Biostatistics and Clinical Data Sciences, Elderbrook Solutions GmbH, Buckinghamshire, UK.
Statistics & Data Science Innovation Hub, GlaxoSmithKline, London, UK.
Pharm Stat. 2025 Mar-Apr;24(2):e2472. doi: 10.1002/pst.2472.
Estimands using the treatment policy strategy for addressing intercurrent events are common in Phase III clinical trials. One estimation approach for this strategy is retrieved dropout whereby observed data following an intercurrent event are used to multiply impute missing data. However, such methods have had issues with variance inflation and model fitting due to data sparsity. This paper introduces likelihood-based versions of these approaches, investigating and comparing their statistical properties to the existing retrieved dropout approaches, simpler analysis models and reference-based multiple imputation. We use a simulation based upon the data from the PIONEER 1 Phase III clinical trial in Type II diabetics to present complex and relevant estimation challenges. The likelihood-based methods display similar statistical properties to their multiple imputation equivalents, but all retrieved dropout approaches suffer from high variance. Retrieved dropout approaches appear less biased than reference-based approaches, resulting in a bias-variance trade-off, but we conclude that the large degree of variance inflation is often more problematic than the bias. Therefore, only the simpler retrieved dropout models appear appropriate as a primary analysis in a clinical trial, and only where it is believed most data following intercurrent events will be observed. The jump-to-reference approach may represent a more promising estimation approach for symptomatic treatments due to its relatively high power and ability to fit in the presence of much missing data, despite its strong assumptions and tendency toward conservative bias. More research is needed to further develop how to estimate the treatment effect for a treatment policy strategy.
在III期临床试验中,使用治疗策略来处理并发事件的估计量很常见。这种策略的一种估计方法是检索失访法,即利用并发事件后的观察数据对缺失数据进行多重填补。然而,由于数据稀疏性,这些方法存在方差膨胀和模型拟合问题。本文介绍了这些方法的基于似然性的版本,研究并将它们的统计特性与现有的检索失访法、更简单的分析模型以及基于参考的多重填补方法进行比较。我们基于II型糖尿病患者的先锋1期III期临床试验数据进行模拟,以呈现复杂且相关的估计挑战。基于似然性的方法与其多重填补等效方法具有相似的统计特性,但所有检索失访法都存在高方差问题。检索失访法的偏差似乎比基于参考的方法小,从而导致偏差 - 方差权衡,但我们得出结论,方差膨胀的程度通常比偏差更成问题。因此,只有更简单的检索失访模型似乎适合作为临床试验的主要分析方法,并且仅在认为并发事件后大多数数据将被观察到的情况下适用。由于其相对较高的功效以及在存在大量缺失数据时的拟合能力,尽管其假设较强且有保守偏差的倾向,但跳转至参考法可能是一种对对症治疗更有前景的估计方法。需要更多研究来进一步开发如何估计治疗策略的治疗效果。