Statistical and Scientific Considerations Concerning the Interpretation, Replicability, and Transportability of Research Findings

Estimands in clinical trials of complex disease processes

Clinical trials with random assignment of treatment provide evidence about causal effects of an experimental treatment compared to standard care. However, when disease processes involve multiple types of possibly semi-competing events, specification of target estimands and causal inferences can be challenging. Intercurrent events such as study withdrawal, the introduction of rescue medication, and death further complicate matters. There has been much discussion about these issues in recent years, but guidance remains ambiguous. Some recommended approaches are formulated in terms of hypothetical settings that have little bearing in the real world. We discuss issues in formulating estimands, beginning with intercurrent events in the context of a linear model and then move on to more complex disease history processes amenable to multistate modeling. We elucidate the meaning of estimands implicit in some recommended approaches for dealing with intercurrent events and highlight the disconnect between estimands formulated in terms of potential outcomes and the real world.

A practical guide to estimating treatment effects in patients with rheumatic diseases using real-world data

OBJECTIVE

Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard in study methodology. However, due to their study design and inclusion criteria, these studies may not capture the heterogeneity of real-world patient populations. In contrast, the lack of randomization and the presence of both measured and unmeasured confounding factors could bias the estimated treatment effect when using observational data. While causal inference methods allow for the estimation of treatment effects, their mathematical complexity may hinder their application in clinical research.

METHODS

We present a practical, nontechnical guide using a common statistical package (Stata) and a motivational simulated dataset that mirrors real-world observational data from patients with rheumatic diseases. We demonstrate regression analysis, regression adjustment, inverse-probability weighting, propensity score (PS) matching and two robust estimation methods.

RESULTS

Although the methods applied to control for confounding factors produced similar results, the commonly used one-to-one PS matching method could yield biased results if not thoroughly assessed.

CONCLUSION

The guide we propose aims to facilitate the use of readily available methods in a common statistical package. It may contribute to robust and transparent epidemiological and statistical methods, thereby enhancing effectiveness research using observational data in rheumatology.