The implications of outcome truncation in reproductive medicine RCTs: a simulation platform for trialists and simulation study

Background Randomised controlled trials in reproductive medicine are often subject to outcome truncation, where the study outcomes are only defined in a subset of the randomised cohort. Examples include birthweight (measurable only in the subgroup of participants who give birth) and miscarriage (which can only occur in participants who become pregnant). These outcomes are typically analysed by making a comparison between treatment arms within the subgroup (for example, comparing birthweights in the subgroup who gave birth or miscarriages in the subgroup who became pregnant). However, this approach does not represent a randomised comparison when treatment influences the probability of being observed (i.e. survival). The practical implications of this for the design and interpretation of reproductive trials are unclear however. Methods We developed a simulation platform to investigate the implications of outcome truncation for reproductive medicine trials. We used this to perform a simulation study, in which we considered the bias, type 1 error, coverage, and precision of standard statistical analyses for truncated continuous and binary outcomes. Simulation settings were informed by published assisted reproduction trials. Results Increasing treatment effect on the intermediate variable, strength of confounding between the intermediate and outcome variables, and the presence of an interaction between treatment and confounder were found to adversely affect performance. However, within parameter ranges we would consider to be more realistic, the adverse effects were generally not drastic. For binary outcomes, the study highlighted that outcome truncation could cause separation in smaller studies, where none or all of the participants in a study arm experience the outcome event. This was found to have severe consequences for inferences. Conclusion We have provided a simulation platform that can be used by researchers in the design and interpretation of reproductive medicine trials subject to outcome truncation and have used this to conduct a simulation study. The study highlights several key factors which trialists in the field should consider carefully to protect against erroneous inferences. Standard analyses of truncated binary outcomes in small studies may be highly biassed, and it remains to identify suitable approaches for analysing data in this context.

[1]  Miriam J. Johnson,et al.  Missing data in randomized controlled trials testing palliative interventions pose a significant risk of bias and loss of power: a systematic review and meta-analyses , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  ICH E9 (R1) addendum on estimands and sensitivity analysis in clinical trials to the guideline on statistical principles for clinical trials , 2020 .

[3]  P. Kearney,et al.  Associations between maternal lifestyle factors and neonatal body composition in the Screening for Pregnancy Endpoints (Cork) cohort study. , 2018, International journal of epidemiology.

[4]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  Aligning Estimators With Estimands in Clinical Trials: Putting the ICH E9(R1) Guidelines Into Practice. , 2019, Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science.

[5]  Detecting the Effects of Early-Life Exposures: Why Fecundity Matters. , 2019, Population research and policy review.

[6]  C. Farquhar,et al.  A Randomized Trial of Endometrial Scratching before In Vitro Fertilization , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  E. Tchetgen Identification and estimation of survivor average causal effects , 2014, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  S. Roberts,et al.  Excess risk of preterm birth with periconceptional iron supplementation in a malaria endemic area: analysis of secondary data on birth outcomes in a double blind randomized controlled safety trial in Burkina Faso , 2019, Malaria Journal.

[9]  N. Raine-Fenning,et al.  Endometrial injury in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[10]  Georg Heinze,et al.  A comparative investigation of methods for logistic regression with separated or nearly separated data , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  K. Barnhart,et al.  Letrozole, Gonadotropin, or Clomiphene for Unexplained Infertility. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  Sandro Galea,et al.  What matters most: quantifying an epidemiology of consequence. , 2015, Annals of epidemiology.

[13]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  No rationale for 1 variable per 10 events criterion for binary logistic regression analysis , 2016, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[14]  Stephen R Cole,et al.  Transportability of Trial Results Using Inverse Odds of Sampling Weights. , 2017, American journal of epidemiology.

[15]  B. Ritz,et al.  Bias from conditioning on live birth in pregnancy cohorts: an illustration based on neurodevelopment in children after prenatal exposure to organic pollutants. , 2015, International journal of epidemiology.

[16]  Sander Greenland,et al.  Sparse data bias: a problem hiding in plain sight , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[17]  E. S. Pearson,et al.  The choice of statistical tests illustrated on the interpretation of data classed in a 2 X 2 table. , 1947, Biometrika.

[18]  N. Raine-Fenning,et al.  Regular (ICSI) versus ultra-high magnification (IMSI) sperm selection for assisted reproduction. , 2013, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[19]  M. Weisskopf,et al.  Live-Birth Bias and Observed Associations Between Air Pollution and Autism , 2018, American journal of epidemiology.

[20]  W. Willett,et al.  Parental characteristics as predictors of birthweight. , 2008, Human reproduction.

[21]  D. Firth Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates , 1993 .

[22]  Michael J Crowther,et al.  Using simulation studies to evaluate statistical methods , 2017, Statistics in medicine.

[23]  William N. Venables,et al.  Modern Applied Statistics with S , 2010 .

[24]  Tim P Morris,et al.  The risks and rewards of covariate adjustment in randomized trials: an assessment of 12 outcomes from 8 studies , 2014, Trials.

[25]  Jeffrey B. Arnold Extra Themes, Scales and Geoms for 'ggplot2' , 2016 .

[26]  Hadley Wickham,et al.  ggplot2 - Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (2nd Edition) , 2017 .

[27]  D. Rubin Causal Inference Through Potential Outcomes and Principal Stratification: Application to Studies with “Censoring” Due to Death , 2006, math/0612783.

[28]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  Aligning Estimators With Estimands in Clinical Trials: Putting the ICH E9(R1) Guidelines Into Practice , 2020, Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science.

[29]  Paige L. Williams,et al.  Quantification of selection bias in studies of risk factors for birth defects among livebirths. , 2020, Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology.

[30]  E. T. Tchetgen Tchetgen Identification and estimation of survivor average causal effects , 2014, Statistics in medicine.

[31]  M. Schemper,et al.  A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[32]  J. Snowden,et al.  Conceiving of Questions Before Delivering Analyses , 2020, Epidemiology.

[33]  M. Hernán,et al.  The effect of prenatal treatments on offspring events in the presence of competing events: an application to a randomized trial of fertility therapies. , 2020, Epidemiology.

[34]  M. D. Hashem,et al.  Statistical methods to compare functional outcomes in randomized controlled trials with high mortality , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[35]  Hilde van der Togt,et al.  Publisher's Note , 2003, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[36]  A Simple Regression-based Approach to Account for Survival Bias in Birth Outcomes Research. , 2015, Epidemiology.

[37]  I. Campbell Chi‐squared and Fisher–Irwin tests of two‐by‐two tables with small sample recommendations , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[38]  D. McLernon,et al.  Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus? , 2015, Human reproduction.

[39]  Sjoerd Repping,et al.  Influence of embryo culture medium (G5 and HTF) on pregnancy and perinatal outcome after IVF: a multicenter RCT. , 2016, Human reproduction.

[40]  M. Werler,et al.  Bias from conditioning on live-births in pregnancy cohorts: an illustration based on neurodevelopment in children after prenatal exposure to organic pollutants (Liew et al. 2015). , 2015, International journal of epidemiology.

[41]  A. Rotnitzky,et al.  Semiparametric estimation of treatment effects given base‐line covariates on an outcome measured after a post‐randomization event occurs , 2007, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology.

[42]  A. Abou-Setta,et al.  Long-term pituitary down-regulation before in vitro fertilization (IVF) for women with endometriosis. , 2006, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[43]  M. Hudgens,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis for the Assessment of Causal Vaccine Effects on Viral Load in HIV Vaccine Trials , 2003, Biometrics.

[44]  Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen,et al.  A causal framework for classical statistical estimands in failure‐time settings with competing events , 2018, Statistics in medicine.

[45]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[46]  Christina Gloeckner,et al.  Modern Applied Statistics With S , 2003 .

[47]  W W Hauck,et al.  Should we adjust for covariates in nonlinear regression analyses of randomized trials? , 1998, Controlled clinical trials.

[48]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  Covariate adjustment in randomized controlled trials with dichotomous outcomes increases statistical power and reduces sample size requirements. , 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[49]  N. Macklon,et al.  What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The next step to improving outcomes of IVF: consider the whole treatment. , 2004, Human reproduction.

[50]  James M. Robins,et al.  Separable Effects for Causal Inference in the Presence of Competing Events , 2019, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[51]  Andrea Rotnitzky,et al.  Sensitivity Analyses Comparing Outcomes Only Existing in a Subset Selected Post‐Randomization, Conditional on Covariates, with Application to HIV Vaccine Trials , 2006, Biometrics.

[52]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, International Coaching Psychology Review.

[53]  S. Roberts,et al.  Are interventions in reproductive medicine assessed for plausible and clinically relevant effects? A systematic review of power and precision in trials and meta-analyses , 2019, Human reproduction.