Improved two-stage estimation to adjust for treatment switching in randomised trials: g-estimation to address time-dependent confounding

• Published in: Statistical methods in medical research Vol. 29; no. 10; pp. 2900 - 2918
• Main Authors: Latimer, NR, White, IR, Tilling, K, Siebert, U
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01-10-2020; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Bias; Computer simulation; Control groups; Cost analysis; Failure times; Health care expenditures; Health services; Humans; Neoplasms; Oncology; Probability; Questions; Sample Size; Structural failure; Survival Analysis; Switching; Time dependence; Treatment Switching; Weighting; treatment crossover; health technology assessment; Treatment switching; time-dependent confounding; survival analysis; time-to-event outcomes; overall survival; prediction; g-estimation; counterfactual; structural nested models; oncology
• ISSN: 0962-2802; 1477-0334
• DOI: 10.1177/0962280220912524

In oncology trials, control group patients often switch onto the experimental treatment during follow-up, usually after disease progression. In this case, an intention-to-treat analysis will not address the policy question of interest – that of whether the new treatment represents an effective and cost-effective use of health care resources, compared to the standard treatment. Rank preserving structural failure time models (RPSFTM), inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW) and two-stage estimation (TSE) have often been used to adjust for switching to inform treatment reimbursement policy decisions. TSE has been applied using a simple approach (TSEsimp), assuming no time-dependent confounding between the time of disease progression and the time of switch. This is problematic if there is a delay between progression and switch. In this paper we introduce TSEgest, which uses structural nested models and g-estimation to account for time-dependent confounding, and compare it to TSEsimp, RPSFTM and IPCW. We simulated scenarios where control group patients could switch onto the experimental treatment with and without time-dependent confounding being present. We varied switching proportions, treatment effects and censoring proportions. We assessed adjustment methods according to their estimation of control group restricted mean survival times that would have been observed in the absence of switching. All methods performed well in scenarios with no time-dependent confounding. TSEgest and RPSFTM continued to perform well in scenarios with time-dependent confounding, but TSEsimp resulted in substantial bias. IPCW also performed well in scenarios with time-dependent confounding, except when inverse probability weights were high in relation to the size of the group being subjected to weighting, which occurred when there was a combination of modest sample size and high switching proportions. TSEgest represents a useful addition to the collection of methods that may be used to adjust for treatment switching in trials in order to address policy-relevant questions.