Statistical considerations in the design and analysis of non-inferiority trials with binary endpoints in the presence of non-adherence: a simulation study

Protocol non-adherence is common and poses unique challenges in the interpretation of trial outcomes, especially in non-inferiority trials. We performed simulations of a non-inferiority trial with a time-fixed treatment and a binary endpoint in order to: i) explore the impact of various patterns of non-adherence and analysis methods on treatment effect estimates; ii) quantify the probability of claiming non-inferiority when the experimental treatment effect is actually inferior; and iii) evaluate alternative methods such as inverse probability weighting and instrumental variable estimation. We found that the probability of concluding non-inferiority when the experimental treatment is actually inferior depends on whether non-adherence is due to confounding or non-confounding factors, and the actual treatments received by the non-adherent participants. With non-adherence, intention-to-treat analysis has a higher tendency to conclude non-inferiority when the experimental treatment is actually inferior under most patterns of non-adherence. This probability of concluding non-inferiority can be increased to as high as 0.1 from 0.025 when the adherence is relatively high at 90%. The direction of bias for the per-protocol analysis depends on the directions of influence the confounders have on adherence and probability of outcome. The inverse probability weighting approach can reduce bias but will only eliminate it if all confounders can be measured without error and are appropriately adjusted for. Instrumental variable estimation overcomes this limitation and gives unbiased estimates even when confounders are not known, but typically requires large sample sizes to achieve acceptable power. Investigators need to consider patterns of non-adherence and potential confounders in trial designs. Adjusted analysis of the per-protocol population with sensitivity analyses on confounders and other approaches, such as instrumental variable estimation, should be considered when non-compliance is anticipated. We provide an online power calculator allowing for various patterns of non-adherence using the above methods.

[1]  Mimi Y. Kim.  Using the Instrumental Variables Estimator to Analyze Noninferiority Trials with Noncompliance , 2010, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[2]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Inverse probability weighting , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[3]  Frank Windmeijer,et al.  Instrumental Variable Estimators for Binary Outcomes , 2009 .

[4]  James M Robins,et al.  Per-Protocol Analyses of Pragmatic Trials. , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  M. Robins James,et al.  Estimation of the causal effects of time-varying exposures , 2008 .

[6]  W C Blackwelder,et al.  "Proving the null hypothesis" in clinical trials. , 1981, Controlled clinical trials.

[7]  The effects of non‐compliance on intent‐to‐treat analysis of equivalence trials , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  Til Stürmer,et al.  Adjusting effect estimates for unmeasured confounding with validation data using propensity score calibration. , 2005, American journal of epidemiology.

[9]  I. White,et al.  Review of inverse probability weighting for dealing with missing data , 2013, Statistical methods in medical research.

[10]  M. Mukaka,et al.  Statistical considerations in the design and analysis of non-inferiority trials with binary endpoints in the presence of non-adherence: a simulation study. , 2019, Wellcome open research.

[11]  O S Miettinen,et al.  Stratification by a multivariate confounder score. , 1976, American journal of epidemiology.

[12]  A. Bilbao,et al.  Duration of Antibiotic Treatment in Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2016, JAMA internal medicine.

[13]  J. Robins,et al.  Comparison of dynamic treatment regimes via inverse probability weighting. , 2006, Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology.

[14]  Joshua D. Angrist,et al.  Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables , 1993 .

[15]  Xun Chen,et al.  Choosing the analysis population in non‐inferiority studies: per protocol or intent‐to‐treat , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  Elizabeth A Stuart,et al.  Using Sensitivity Analyses for Unobserved Confounding to Address Covariate Measurement Error in Propensity Score Methods , 2018, American journal of epidemiology.

[17]  Stijn Vansteelandt,et al.  Improving the robustness and efficiency of covariate‐adjusted linear instrumental variable estimators , 2015, 1510.01770.

[18]  S. Pocock,et al.  Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. , 2006, JAMA.

[19]  Liang Zhao,et al.  Correcting for non‐compliance in randomized non‐inferiority trials with active and placebo control using structural models , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  J. Robins,et al.  Doubly Robust Estimation in Missing Data and Causal Inference Models , 2005, Biometrics.

[21]  L F Burmeister,et al.  Proving the Null Hypothesis , 1992, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[22]  J. Robins,et al.  Estimation of treatment effects in randomised trials with non-compliance and a dichotomous outcome using structural mean models , 2004 .

[23]  T. Whelan,et al.  Treatment crossovers in time-to-event non-inferiority randomised trials of radiotherapy in patients with breast cancer , 2014, BMJ Open.