arXiv subjects

Brennan C Kahan

Publications and source records attributed to Brennan C Kahan.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Tools to help patients and other stakeholders' input into choice of estimand and intercurrent event strategy in randomised trials

Estimands can help to clarify the research questions being addressed in randomised trials. Because the choice of estimand can affect how relevant trial results are to patients and other stakeholders, such as clinicians or policymakers, it is important for them to be involved in these decisions. However, there are barriers to having these conversations. For instance, discussions around how intercurrent events should be addressed in the estimand definition typically involve complex concepts as well as technical language. We three tools to facilitate conversations between researchers and patients and other stakeholders about the choice of estimand and intercurrent event strategy: (i) a video explaining the concept of an estimand and the five different ways that intercurrent events can be incorporated into the estimand definition; (ii) an infographic outlining these five strategies; and (iii) an editable PowerPoint slide which can be completed with trial-specific details to facilitate conversations around choice of estimand for a particular trial. These resources can help to start conversations between the trial team and patients and other stakeholders about the best choice of estimand and intercurrent event strategies for a randomised trial.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

When do composite estimands answer non-causal questions?

Under a composite estimand strategy, the occurrence of the intercurrent event is incorporated into the endpoint definition, for instance by assigning a poor outcome value to patients who experience the event. Composite strategies are sometimes used for intercurrent events that result in changes to assigned treatment, such as treatment discontinuation or use of rescue medication. Here, we show that a composite strategy for these types of intercurrent events can lead to the outcome being defined differently between treatment arms, resulting in estimands that are not based on causal comparisons. This occurs when the intercurrent event can be categorised, such as based on its timing, and at least one category applies to one treatment arm only. For example, in a trial comparing a 6 vs. 12-month treatment regimen on an "unfavourable" outcome, treatment discontinuation can be categorised as occurring between 0-6 or 6-12 months. A composite strategy then results in treatment discontinuations between 6-12 months being part of the outcome definition in the 12-month arm, but not the 6-month arm. Using a simulation study, we show that this can dramatically affect conclusions; for instance, in a scenario where the intervention had no direct effect on either a clinical outcome or occurrence of the intercurrent event, a composite strategy led to an average risk difference of -10% and rejected the null hypothesis almost 90% of the time. We conclude that a composite strategy should not be used if it results in different outcome definitions being used across treatment arms.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2024

Demystifying estimands in cluster-randomised trials

Estimands can help clarify the interpretation of treatment effects and ensure that estimators are aligned to the study's objectives. Cluster randomised trials require additional attributes to be defined within the estimand compared to individually randomised trials, including whether treatment effects are marginal or cluster specific, and whether they are participant or cluster average. In this paper, we provide formal definitions of estimands encompassing both these attributes using potential outcomes notation and describe differences between them. We then provide an overview of estimators for each estimand, describe their assumptions, and show consistency (i.e. asymptotically unbiased estimation) for a series of analyses based on cluster level summaries. Then, through a reanalysis of a published cluster randomised trial, we demonstrate that the choice of both estimand and estimator can affect interpretation. For instance, the estimated odds ratio ranged from 1.38 (p=0.17) to 1.83 (p=0.03) depending on the target estimand, and for some estimands, the choice of estimator affected the conclusions by leading to smaller treatment effect estimates. We conclude that careful specification of the estimand, along with an appropriate choice of estimator, are essential to ensuring that cluster randomised trials address the right question.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

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

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.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

Using modified intention-to-treat as a principal stratum estimator for failure to initiate treatment

Background: A common intercurrent event affecting many trials is when some participants do not begin their assigned treatment. Many trials use a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) approach, whereby participants who do not initiate treatment are excluded from the analysis. However, it is not clear the estimand being targeted by such an approach or the assumptions necessary for it to be unbiased. Methods: We demonstrate that a mITT analysis which excludes participants who do not begin treatment is estimating a principal stratum estimand (i.e. the treatment effect in the subpopulation of participants who would begin treatment, regardless of which arm they were assigned to). The mITT estimator is unbiased for the principal stratum estimand under the assumption that the intercurrent event is not affected by the assigned treatment arm, that is, participants who initiate treatment in one arm would also do so in the other arm. Results: We identify two key criteria in determining whether the mITT estimator is likely to be unbiased: first, we must be able to measure the participants in each treatment arm who experience the intercurrent event, and second, the assumption that treatment allocation will not affect whether the participant begins treatment must be reasonable. Most double-blind trials will satisfy these criteria, and we provide an example of an open-label trial where these criteria are likely to be satisfied as well. Conclusions: A modified intention-to-treat analysis which excludes participants who do not begin treatment can be an unbiased estimator for the principal stratum estimand. Our framework can help identify when the assumptions for unbiasedness are likely to hold, and thus whether modified intention-to-treat is appropriate or not.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2020

How to design a pre-specified statistical analysis approach to limit p-hacking in clinical trials: the Pre-SPEC framework

Results from clinical trials can be susceptible to bias if investigators choose their analysis approach after seeing trial data, as this can allow them to perform multiple analyses and then choose the method that provides the most favourable result (commonly referred to as 'p-hacking'). Pre-specification of the planned analysis approach is essential to help reduce such bias, as it ensures analytical methods are chosen in advance of seeing the trial data. However, pre-specification is only effective if done in a way that does not allow p-hacking. For example, investigators may pre-specify a certain statistical method such as multiple imputation, but give little detail on how it will be implemented. Because there are many different ways to perform multiple imputation, this approach to pre-specification is ineffective, as it still allows investigators to analyse the data in different ways before deciding on a final approach. In this article we describe a five-point framework (the Pre-SPEC framework) for designing a pre-specified analysis approach that does not allow p-hacking. This framework is intended to be used in conjunction with the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement and other similar guidelines to help investigators design the statistical analysis strategy for the trial's primary outcome in the trial protocol.

stat.ME↗