Intermediate outcomes in randomized clinical trials: an introduction

Trials

Ahmet Metin Gulmezoglu¹  Ana Pilar Betran¹  Alexander Peregoudov¹  Armando H Seuc¹ 

[1]Reproductive Health Research Department, World Health Organization, Geneva 27 1211, Switzerland

关键词: Causal effects;    Principal stratification;    Intention-to-treat approach;    Intermediate outcomes;   

Others  :  1094509
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-14-78

 received in 2012-03-05, accepted in 2013-01-29,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Intermediate outcomes are common and typically on the causal pathway to the final outcome. Some examples include noncompliance, missing data, and truncation by death like pregnancy (e.g. when the trial intervention is given to non-pregnant women and the final outcome is preeclampsia, defined only on pregnant women). The intention-to-treat approach does not account properly for them, and more appropriate alternative approaches like principal stratification are not yet widely known. The purposes of this study are to inform researchers that the intention-to-treat approach unfortunately does not fit all problems we face in experimental research, to introduce the principal stratification approach for dealing with intermediate outcomes, and to illustrate its application to a trial of long term calcium supplementation in women at high risk of preeclampsia.

Methods

Principal stratification and related concepts are introduced. Two ways for estimating causal effects are discussed and their application is illustrated using the calcium trial, where noncompliance and pregnancy are considered as intermediate outcomes, and preeclampsia is the main final outcome.

Results

The limitations of traditional approaches and methods for dealing with intermediate outcomes are demonstrated. The steps, assumptions and required calculations involved in the application of the principal stratification approach are discussed in detail in the case of our calcium trial.

Conclusions

The intention-to-treat approach is a very sound one but unfortunately it does not fit all problems we find in randomized clinical trials; this is particularly the case for intermediate outcomes, where alternative approaches like principal stratification should be considered.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Seuc et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Rochon J: Issues in adjusting for covariates arising postrandomization in clinical trials. Drug Information Journal 1999, 33:1219-1228.
• [2]Robins J: The control of confounding by intermediate variables. Stat Med 1989, 8:679-701.
• [3]Robins J, Greenland S: Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology 1992, 3:143-155.
• [4]Little R, Rubin D: Causal effects in clinical and epidemiological studies via potential outcomes: Concepts and Analytical Approaches. Annu Rev Public Health 2000, 21:121-145.
• [5]Frangakis CE, Rubin D: Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics 2002, 58:21-29.
• [6]Pan African Clinical Trials Registry [Internet]: South African Cochrane Centre, P.O. Box 19070, Tygerberg, 7505. South Africa: Identifier PACTR201105000267371, WHO randomized trial of calcium supplementation before pregnancy to reduce recurrent preeclampsia. 2010. Dec 6 [cited 2012 March 3]; [8 screens]. [http://www.pactr.org/ATMWeb/appmanager/atm/atmregistry?da=true&tno=PACTR201105000267371 webcite]
• [7]Gunasekara FI, Carter K, Blakely T: Glossary for econometrics and epidemiology. J Epidemiol Community Health 2008, 62:858-861.
• [8]Rothman KJ, Greenland S: Modern Epidemiology. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998.
• [9]Brookhart MA, Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S: Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research. Effective Health Care Research Report No. 22. (Prepared by Brigham and Women’s Hospital DEcIDE Center Under Contract No. 290-2005-0016I T03). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010. [http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm webcite]
• [10]Angrist JD, Imbens GW: Two-stage least squares estimation of average causal effects in models with variable treatment intensity. J Am Stat Assoc 1995, 90:431-442.
• [11]Greenland S: An introduction to instrumental variables for epidemiologists. Int J Epidemiol 2000, 29:722-729.
• [12]Rassena JA, Brookhart MA, Glynna RJ, Mittleman MA, Schneeweiss S: Instrumental variables I: instrumental variables exploit natural variation in nonexperimental data to estimate causal relationships. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:1226-1232.
• [13]MacPherson H: Pragmatic clinical trials. Complement Ther Med 2004, 12:136-140.
• [14]Hollis S, Campbell F: What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 1999, 319:670.
• [15]Stuart EA, Perry DF, Le H-N, Ialongo NS: Estimating intervention effects of prevention programs: Accounting for noncompliance. Prev Sci 2008, 9:288-298.
• [16]Hofmeyr GJ, Lawrie TA, Atallah AN, Duley L: Calcium supplementation during pregnancy for preventing hypertensive disorders and related problems. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010,  (8):CD001059.
• [17]Belizan JM, Villar J, Gonzalez L, Campodonico L, Bergel E: Calcium supplementation to prevent hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1991, 325:1399-1405.
• [18]Levine RJ, Hauth JC, Curet LB, Sibai BM, Catalano PM, Morris CD, DerSimonian R, Esterlitz JR, Raymond EG, Bild DE, Clemens JD, Cutler JA: Trial of calcium to prevent preeclampsia. N Engl J Med 1997, 337:69-76.
• [19]Villar J, Abdel-Aleem H, Merialdi M, Mathai M, Ali M, Zavaleta N, Purwar M, Hofmeyr J, Nguyen TN, Campódonico L, Landoulsi S, Carroli G, Lindheimer M, World Health Organization Calcium Supplementation for the Prevention of Preeclampsia Trial Group: World Health Organization randomized trial of calcium supplementation among low calcium intake pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006, 194:639-649.
• [20]Sanchez-Ramos L, Briones DK, Kaunitz AM, Delvalle GO, Gaudier FL, Walker KD: Prevention of pregnancy-induced hypertension by calcium supplementation in angiotensin II sensitive patients. Obstet Gynecol 1994, 84:349-353.
• [21]Frumento P, Fabrizia M, Barbara P, Rubin DB: Forthcoming. Evaluating the effect of training on wages in the presence of noncompliance, nonemployment, and missing outcome data. Journal of the American Statistical Unionaccessed November 2012). [http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:9275635 webcite]
• [22]Barnard J, Frangakis CE, Hill JL, Rubin DB: Principal stratification approach to broken randomized experiments: a case study of school choice vouchers in New York City. J Am Stat Assoc 2003, 98:462.
• [23]Yau LHY, Little RJ: Inference for the complier-average causal effect from longitudinal data subject to noncompliance and missing data, with application to a job training assessment for the unemployed. J Am Stat Assoc 2001, 96:456.
• [24]Rubin D: Causal inference using potential outcomes: design, modeling, decisions. J Am Stat Assoc 2005, 100:469.
• [25]Rubin D: Causal inference through potential outcomes and principal stratification: application to studies with “censoring” due to death. Stat Sci 2006, 21:299-309.
• [26]Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB: Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Statist Ass 1996, 91:444-455.
• [27]Dunn G, Maracy M, Tomenson B: Estimating treatment effects from randomized clinical trials with noncompliance and loss to follow-up: the role of instrumental variable methods. Stat Methods Med Res 2005, 14:369-395.
• [28]Imbens GW, Rubin DB: Bayesian Inference for Causal Effects in Randomized Experiments with Noncompliance. Ann Stat 25:305-327.
• [29]Frangakis CE, Varadhan R: Systematizing the evaluation of partially controlled studies using principal stratification: from theory to practice. Stat Sin 2004, 14:945-947.
• [30]Altman DG: Missing outcomes in randomized trials: addressing the dilemma. Open Medicine 2009, 3:2.
• [31]Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG: CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010, 340:c869.
• [32]Godwin M, Ruhland L, Casson I, MacDonald S, Delva D, Birtwhistle R, Lam M, Seguin R: Pragmatic controlled clinical trials in primary care: the struggle between external and internal validity. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003, 3:28. BioMed Central Full Text
• [33]Rubin DB: Bayesian inference for causal effects: the role of randomization. Ann Statist 1978, 6:34-58.