Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2312.00494

Applying the estimands framework to non-inferiority trials: guidance on choice of hypothetical estimands for non-adherence and comparison of estimation methods

Katy E Morgan·Ian R White·Clémence Leyrat·Simon Stanworth·Brennan C Kahan
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A common concern in non-inferiority (NI) trials is that non adherence due, for example, to poor study conduct can make treatment arms artificially similar. Because intention to treat analyses can be anti-conservative in this situation, per protocol analyses are sometimes recommended. However, such advice does not consider the estimands framework, nor the risk of bias from per protocol analyses. We therefore sought to update the above guidance using the estimands framework, and compare estimators to improve on the performance of per protocol analyses. We argue the main threat to validity of NI trials is the occurrence of trial specific intercurrent events (IEs), that is, IEs which occur in a trial setting, but would not occur in practice. To guard against erroneous conclusions of non inferiority, we suggest an estimand using a hypothetical strategy for trial specific IEs should be employed, with handling of other non trial specific IEs chosen based on clinical considerations. We provide an overview of estimators that could be used to estimate a hypothetical estimand, including inverse probability weighting (IPW), and two instrumental variable approaches (one using an informative Bayesian prior on the effect of standard treatment, and one using a treatment by covariate interaction as an instrument). We compare them, using simulation in the setting of all or nothing compliance in two active treatment arms, and conclude both IPW and the instrumental variable method using a Bayesian prior are potentially useful approaches, with the choice between them depending on which assumptions are most plausible for a given trial.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Katy E Morgan, Ian R White, Clémence Leyrat, Simon Stanworth, Brennan C Kahan. 2023-12-01. Applying the estimands framework to non-inferiority trials: guidance on choice of hypothetical estimands for non-adherence and comparison of estimation methods. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00494

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗