A Causal Roadmap for Hybrid Randomized and Real-World Data Designs: Case Study of Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes

Introduction: Increasing interest in real-world evidence has fueled the development of study designs incorporating real-world data (RWD). Using the Causal Roadmap, we specify three designs to evaluate the difference in risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with oral semaglutide versus standard-of-care: 1) the actual sequence of non-inferiority and superiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 2) a single RCT, and 3) a hybrid randomized-external data study. Methods: The hybrid design considers integration of the PIONEER 6 RCT with RWD controls using the experiment-selector cross-validated targeted maximum likelihood estimator. We evaluate 95% confidence interval coverage, power, and average patient-time during which participants would be precluded from receiving a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1-RA) for each design using simulations. Finally, we estimate the effect of oral semaglutide on MACE for the hybrid PIONEER 6-RWD analysis. Results: In simulations, Designs 1 and 2 performed similarly. The tradeoff between decreased coverage and patient-time without the possibility of a GLP1-RA for Designs 1 and 3 depended on the simulated bias. In real data analysis using Design 3, external controls were integrated in 84% of cross-validation folds, resulting in an estimated risk difference of -1.53%-points (95% CI -2.75%-points to -0.30%-points). Conclusions: The Causal Roadmap helps investigators to minimize potential bias in studies using RWD and to quantify tradeoffs between study designs. The simulation results help to interpret the level of evidence provided by the real data analysis in support of the superiority of oral semaglutide versus standard-of-care for cardiovascular risk reduction.

[1]  Raymond A. Huml,et al.  A causal roadmap for generating high-quality real-world evidence , 2023, Journal of Clinical and Translational Science.

[2]  Rachael V. Phillips,et al.  Targeted Learning: Toward a Future Informed by Real-World Evidence , 2022, Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research.

[3]  Xiaofei Wang,et al.  Elastic Integrative Analysis of Randomized Trial and Real-World Data for Treatment Heterogeneity Estimation , 2020, 2005.10579.

[4]  M. Petersen,et al.  A Cross-Validated Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimator for Data-Adaptive Experiment Selection Applied to the Augmentation of RCT Control Arms with External Data , 2022, 2210.05802.

[5]  D. Sontag,et al.  Bias-robust Integration of Observational and Experimental Estimators , 2022 .

[6]  I. Hirsch,et al.  The management of type 1 diabetes in adults. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) , 2021, Diabetologia.

[7]  Bo Zhang,et al.  Minimax Rates and Adaptivity in Combining Experimental and Observational Data , 2021, 2109.10522.

[8]  Y. Ben-Shlomo,et al.  Socio-economic inequalities in fragility fracture incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 61 observational studies , 2021, Osteoporosis International.

[9]  S. Schneeweiss,et al.  Emulating Randomized Clinical Trials with Nonrandomized Real-World Evidence Studies: First Results from the RCT DUPLICATE Initiative. , 2020, Circulation.

[10]  V. Chasnyk,et al.  Safety and efficacy of intravenous belimumab in children with systemic lupus erythematosus: results from a randomised, placebo-controlled trial , 2020, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

[11]  Joey Tianyi Zhou,et al.  A roadmap to using historical controls in clinical trials – by Drug Information Association Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group (DIA-ADSWG) , 2020, Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases.

[12]  James M. Robins,et al.  Study Designs for Extending Causal Inferences from a Randomized Trial to a Target Population. , 2019, American journal of epidemiology.

[13]  Mark Payne,et al.  Health and Human Services , 2020, Congress and the Nation 2013-2016, Volume XIV: Politics and Policy in the 113th and 114th Congresses.

[14]  J. Rosenstock,et al.  Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin: The PIONEER 2 Trial , 2019, Diabetes Care.

[15]  T. Vilsbøll,et al.  Oral Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. , 2019, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  R. Pratley,et al.  Oral semaglutide versus subcutaneous liraglutide and placebo in type 2 diabetes (PIONEER 4): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3a trial , 2019, The Lancet.

[17]  J. Rosenstock,et al.  PIONEER 1: Randomized Clinical Trial of the Efficacy and Safety of Oral Semaglutide Monotherapy in Comparison With Placebo in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes , 2019, Diabetes Care.

[18]  J. Rosenstock,et al.  Effect of Additional Oral Semaglutide vs Sitagliptin on Glycated Hemoglobin in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled With Metformin Alone or With Sulfonylurea: The PIONEER 3 Randomized Clinical Trial , 2019, JAMA.

[19]  W. Sheu,et al.  Cardiovascular safety of oral semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes: Rationale, design and patient baseline characteristics for the PIONEER 6 trial , 2018, Diabetes, obesity & metabolism.

[20]  Nusrat Harun,et al.  Bayesian selective response‐adaptive design using the historical control , 2018, Statistics in medicine.

[21]  H. Rodbard,et al.  Semaglutide Added to Basal Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 5): A Randomized, Controlled Trial , 2018, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[22]  Shomesh E. Chaudhuri,et al.  Patient-centered clinical trials. , 2017, Drug discovery today.

[23]  Draft Guidance Adaptive Designs for Clinical Trials of Drugs and Biologics , 2018 .

[24]  G. Charpentier,et al.  Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide ER in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 3): A 56-Week, Open-Label, Randomized Clinical Trial , 2017, Diabetes Care.

[25]  Tyler J. VanderWeele,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-Value , 2017, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[26]  J. DeVries,et al.  Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-daily insulin glargine as add-on to metformin (with or without sulfonylureas) in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 4): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, multinational, phase 3a trial. , 2017, The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology.

[27]  B. Ahrén,et al.  Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-daily sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin, thiazolidinediones, or both, in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 2): a 56-week, double-blind, phase 3a, randomised trial. , 2017, The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology.

[28]  Lawrence A Leiter,et al.  Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[29]  Alan E. Hubbard,et al.  Statistical Inference for Data Adaptive Target Parameters , 2016, The international journal of biostatistics.

[30]  J. van der Laan,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis for Causal Inference Under Unmeasured Confounding and Measurement Error Problems , 2016 .

[31]  B. Fitzgerald Guidance Regarding Methods for De-identification of Protected Health Information in Accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule , 2015 .

[32]  Anthony O'Hagan,et al.  Robust meta‐analytic‐predictive priors in clinical trials with historical control information , 2014, Biometrics.

[33]  M. J. van der Laan,et al.  Causal Models and Learning from Data: Integrating Causal Modeling and Statistical Estimation , 2014, Epidemiology.

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

[35]  B. Zinman,et al.  Design of the liraglutide effect and action in diabetes: evaluation of cardiovascular outcome results (LEADER) trial. , 2013, American heart journal.

[36]  Brian P Hobbs,et al.  Adaptive adjustment of the randomization ratio using historical control data , 2013, Clinical trials.

[37]  W. Al-Refaie,et al.  Does enrollment in cancer trials improve survival? , 2013, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[38]  Kristin E. Porter,et al.  Diagnosing and responding to violations in the positivity assumption , 2012, Statistical methods in medical research.

[39]  Bradley P Carlin,et al.  Hierarchical Commensurate and Power Prior Models for Adaptive Incorporation of Historical Information in Clinical Trials , 2011, Biometrics.

[40]  M. Lipsitch,et al.  Negative Controls: A Tool for Detecting Confounding and Bias in Observational Studies , 2010, Epidemiology.

[41]  Xu Yan,et al.  Missing Data Handling Methods in Medical Device Clinical Trials , 2009, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[42]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Comment : Neyman ( 1923 ) and Causal Inference in Experiments and Observational Studies , 2007 .

[43]  M. J. van der Laan,et al.  Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology Super Learner , 2010 .

[44]  M. J. van der Laan,et al.  The International Journal of Biostatistics Targeted Maximum Likelihood Learning , 2011 .

[45]  J. Robins,et al.  Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data , 2006, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[46]  A. Sanabria,et al.  Randomized controlled trial. , 2005, World journal of surgery.

[47]  J. Pearl Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference , 2000 .

[48]  James M. Robins,et al.  Semiparametric Regression for Repeated Outcomes With Nonignorable Nonresponse , 1998 .

[49]  J. Pearl Causal diagrams for empirical research , 1995 .

[50]  J. Robins A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect , 1986 .

[51]  S J Pocock,et al.  The combination of randomized and historical controls in clinical trials. , 1976, Journal of chronic diseases.